ArticleBioinformation2006
Comparative analysis of various gene finders specific to Caenorhabditis elegans genome.
Article in Bioinformation, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification and comparative analysis of novel alternatively spliced transcripts of RhoGEF domain encoding gene in C. elegans and C. briggsae.Bioinformation · 2007Article
- Computational and molecular characterization of multiple isoforms of lfe-2 gene in nematode C. elegans.Bioinformation · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational gene prediction and identifying alternatively spliced isoforms have always been a challenging task. In this paper, we describe the performance of three gene/exon finding programmes namely Fex, Gen view2 and Gene builder capable of predicting open reading frames or exons for a given set of sequences from C. elegans genome. The predicted exons were compared with the 'sequencing consortium' identified exons and degree of consensus among them is discussed. We found that exon prediction by Fex was similar to the consortium prediction as compared to Gen view2 and Gene builder results. Interestingly, some exons (six exons in five genes) predicted positive only by Fex and not by the 'sequencing consortium' are found at the C. elegans EST database. This data is critical for further debate and discussion on gene finding in C. elegans.
Identifiers
17597889PMC1891687What 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.