Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16925836›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2006

EGASP: the human ENCODE Genome Annotation Assessment Project.

Roderic Guigó, Paul Flicek, Josep F Abril, Alexandre Reymond, Julien Lagarde, France Denoeud, Stylianos Antonarakis, Michael Ashburner, Vladimir B Bajic, Ewan Birney and 8 more

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

140 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Bioinformatics advances · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Progress, Challenges, and Surprises in Annotating the Human Genome.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2020
    Review

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Roderic GuigóCentre de Regulació Genòmica, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Mèdica-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, E08003 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. rguigo@imim.es
Paul Flicek
Josep F Abril
Alexandre Reymond
Julien Lagarde
France Denoeud
Stylianos Antonarakis
Michael Ashburner
Vladimir B Bajic
Ewan Birney
Robert Castelo
Eduardo Eyras
Catherine Ucla
Thomas R Gingeras
Jennifer Harrow
Tim Hubbard
Suzanna E Lewis
Martin G Reese

Funding

Medical Research Council G8225539Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Genome, HumanAlternative SplicingAnimalsComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticGenesGenomicsHumansMiceRNA, MessengerSequence Analysis, DNASequence Analysis, RNARNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID16925836
PMCPMC1810551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.