ReviewGenome biology2006
EGASP: the human ENCODE Genome Annotation Assessment Project.
Review in Genome biology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
140 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient reconstruction of full-length RNA isoforms using ISAtools and large-scale PacBio circular consensus sequencing data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- An expanded reference catalog of translated open reading frames for biomedical research.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Evaluating computational tools for protein-coding sequence detection: Are they up to the task?RNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- GENCODE 2025: reference gene annotation for human and mouse.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Systematic assessment of long-read RNA-seq methods for transcript identification and quantification.Nature methods · 2024Article
- GeneMark-ETP significantly improves the accuracy of automatic annotation of large eukaryotic genomes.Genome research · 2024Article
- A new gene finding tool GeneMark-ETP significantly improves the accuracy of automatic annotation of large eukaryotic genomes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Effects of In Utero EtOH Exposure on 18S Ribosomal RNA Processing: Contribution to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Systematic assessment of long-read RNA-seq methods for transcript identification and quantification.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Best genome sequencing strategies for annotation of complex immune gene families in wildlife.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Bookend: precise transcript reconstruction with end-guided assembly.Genome biology · 2022Article
- Genome-wide exploration of oil biosynthesis genes in cultivated olive tree varieties (Olea europaea): insights into regulation of oil biosynthesis.Functional & integrative genomics · 2022Article
- Long Non-Coding RNA-Based Functional Prediction Reveals Novel Targets in Notch-Upregulated Ovarian Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
- DNA damage repair: historical perspectives, mechanistic pathways and clinical translation for targeted cancer therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2021Review
- Simultaneous Expression of Long Non-Coding RNACancers · 2021Article
- BRAKER2: automatic eukaryotic genome annotation with GeneMark-EP+ and AUGUSTUS supported by a protein database.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Understanding the causes of errors in eukaryotic protein-coding gene prediction: a case study of primate proteomes.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Review on the Computational Genome Annotation of Sequences Obtained by Next-Generation Sequencing.Biology · 2020Review
- Progress, Challenges, and Surprises in Annotating the Human Genome.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2020Review
80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe present the results of EGASP, a community experiment to assess the state-of-the-art in genome annotation within the ENCODE regions, which span 1% of the human genome sequence. The experiment had two major goals: the assessment of the accuracy of computational methods to predict protein coding genes; and the overall assessment of the completeness of the current human genome annotations as represented in the ENCODE regions. For the computational prediction assessment, eighteen groups contributed gene predictions. We evaluated these submissions against each other based on a 'reference set' of annotations generated as part of the GENCODE project. These annotations were not available to the prediction groups prior to the submission deadline, so that their predictions were blind and an external advisory committee could perform a fair assessment.
resultsThe best methods had at least one gene transcript correctly predicted for close to 70% of the annotated genes. Nevertheless, the multiple transcript accuracy, taking into account alternative splicing, reached only approximately 40% to 50% accuracy. At the coding nucleotide level, the best programs reached an accuracy of 90% in both sensitivity and specificity. Programs relying on mRNA and protein sequences were the most accurate in reproducing the manually curated annotations. Experimental validation shows that only a very small percentage (3.2%) of the selected 221 computationally predicted exons outside of the existing annotation could be verified.
conclusionThis is the first such experiment in human DNA, and we have followed the standards established in a similar experiment, GASP1, in Drosophila melanogaster. We believe the results presented here contribute to the value of ongoing large-scale annotation projects and should guide further experimental methods when being scaled up to the entire human genome sequence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.