Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19429689›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2009

Orphelia: predicting genes in metagenomic sequencing reads.

Katharina J Hoff, Thomas Lingner, Peter Meinicke, Maike Tech

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. IntegratedNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. CNN-MGP: Convolutional Neural Networks for Metagenomics Gene Prediction.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Conducting metagenomic studies in microbiology and clinical research.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2018
    Review
  13. Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A clinician's guide to microbiome analysis.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Katharina J HoffAbteilung Bioinformatik, Institut für Mikrobiologie und Genetik, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Goldschmidtstr. 1, 37077 Göttingen, Germany. katharina@gobics.de
Thomas Lingner
Peter Meinicke
Maike Tech

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metagenomic sequencing projects yield numerous sequencing reads of a diverse range of uncultivated and mostly yet unknown microorganisms. In many cases, these sequencing reads cannot be assembled into longer contigs. Thus, gene prediction tools that were originally developed for whole-genome analysis are not suitable for processing metagenomes. Orphelia is a program for predicting genes in short DNA sequences that is available through a web server application (http://orphelia.gobics.de). Orphelia utilizes prediction models that were created with machine learning techniques on the basis of a wide range of annotated genomes. In contrast to other methods for metagenomic gene prediction, Orphelia has fragment length-specific prediction models for the two most popular sequencing techniques in metagenomics, chain termination sequencing and pyrosequencing. These models ensure highly specific gene predictions.

Indexed as

Environmental MicrobiologyGenesGenomicsSoftwareInternetOpen Reading FramesSequence Analysis, DNAUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID19429689
PMCPMC2703946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.