Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20157493›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2009

MicroScope: a platform for microbial genome annotation and comparative genomics.

D Vallenet, S Engelen, D Mornico, S Cruveiller, L Fleury, A Lajus, Z Rouy, D Roche, G Salvignol, C Scarpelli and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 188 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
188citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

188 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Meta-analysis of theMicrobial genomics · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Diversity of biofilm architectures within the genusApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. STAGE: A compact and versatile TnpB-based genome editing toolkit forProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Complete Genome Sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

128 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

11 authors.

D VallenetCEA/DSV/IG/Genoscope-CNRS UMR8030, Laboratoire de Génomique Comparative (LGC), 2 rue Gaston Crémieux, 91057 Evry Cedex, France.
S Engelen
D Mornico
S Cruveiller
L Fleury
A Lajus
Z Rouy
D Roche
G Salvignol
C Scarpelli
C Médigue

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The initial outcome of genome sequencing is the creation of long text strings written in a four letter alphabet. The role of in silico sequence analysis is to assist biologists in the act of associating biological knowledge with these sequences, allowing investigators to make inferences and predictions that can be tested experimentally. A wide variety of software is available to the scientific community, and can be used to identify genomic objects, before predicting their biological functions. However, only a limited number of biologically interesting features can be revealed from an isolated sequence. Comparative genomics tools, on the other hand, by bringing together the information contained in numerous genomes simultaneously, allow annotators to make inferences based on the idea that evolution and natural selection are central to the definition of all biological processes. We have developed the MicroScope platform in order to offer a web-based framework for the systematic and efficient revision of microbial genome annotation and comparative analysis (http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/agc/microscope). Starting with the description of the flow chart of the annotation processes implemented in the MicroScope pipeline, and the development of traditional and novel microbial annotation and comparative analysis tools, this article emphasizes the essential role of expert annotation as a complement of automatic annotation. Several examples illustrate the use of implemented tools for the review and curation of annotations of both new and publicly available microbial genomes within MicroScope's rich integrated genome framework. The platform is used as a viewer in order to browse updated annotation information of available microbial genomes (more than 440 organisms to date), and in the context of new annotation projects (117 bacterial genomes). The human expertise gathered in the MicroScope database (about 280,000 independent annotations) contributes to improve the quality of microbial genome annotation, especially for genomes initially analyzed by automatic procedures alone.Database URLs: http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/agc/mage and http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/agc/microcyc.

Identifiers

PMID20157493
PMCPMC2790312

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.