Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19577928›Full record

ReviewTrends in microbiology2009

Gene Ontology and the annotation of pathogen genomes: the case of Candida albicans.

Martha B Arnaud, Maria C Costanzo, Prachi Shah, Marek S Skrzypek, Gavin Sherlock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Coccidioides Species: A Review of Basic Research: 2022.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Primer on the Gene Ontology.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Systems biology of fungal infection.Frontiers in microbiology · 2012
    Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Martha B ArnaudDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, CA 94305-5120, USA.
Maria C Costanzo
Prachi Shah
Marek S Skrzypek
Gavin Sherlock

Funding

Genomic Database for Candida AlbicansR01DE015873 · NIDCR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Gavin J Sherlock · 2004 to 2026
$11.7M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE015873
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Gene Ontology (GO) is a structured controlled vocabulary developed to describe the roles and locations of gene products in a consistent manner and in a way that can be shared across organisms. The unicellular fungus Candida albicans is similar in many ways to the model organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae but, as both a commensal and a pathogen of humans, differs greatly in its lifestyle. With an expanding at-risk population of immunosuppressed patients, increased use of invasive medical procedures, the increasing prevalence of drug resistance and the emergence of additional Candida species as serious pathogens, it has never been more crucial to improve our understanding of Candida biology to guide the development of better treatments. In this brief review, we examine the importance of GO in the annotation of C. albicans gene products, with a focus on those involved in pathogenesis. We also discuss how sequence information combined with GO facilitates the transfer of knowledge across related species and the challenges and opportunities that such an approach presents.

Indexed as

Genome, FungalCandida albicansComputational BiologyFungal ProteinsVirulence FactorsVocabulary, ControlledFungal ProteinsVirulence Factors

Identifiers

PMID19577928
PMCPMC3907193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.