ArticlePloS one2011
AGeS: a software system for microbial genome sequence annotation.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using bacterial genomes and essential genes for the development of new antibiotics.Biochemical pharmacology · 2017Review
- GAMOLA2, a Comprehensive Software Package for the Annotation and Curation of Draft and Complete Microbial Genomes.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
- On the study of microbial transcriptomes using second- and third-generation sequencing technologies.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2016Review
- Quantitative frame analysis and the annotation of GC-rich (and other) prokaryotic genomes. An application to Anaeromyxobacter dehalogenans.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2015Article
- SearchDOGS bacteria, software that provides automated identification of potentially missed genes in annotated bacterial genomes.Journal of bacteriology · 2014Article
- Integration of bioinformatics to biodegradation.Biological procedures online · 2014Review
- Open-source syringe pump library.PloS one · 2014Article
- Outbreak investigation using high-throughput genome sequencing within a diagnostic microbiology laboratory.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- The automatic annotation of bacterial genomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Open-source 3D-printable optics equipment.PloS one · 2013Article
- BG7: a new approach for bacterial genome annotation designed for next generation sequencing data.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe annotation of genomes from next-generation sequencing platforms needs to be rapid, high-throughput, and fully integrated and automated. Although a few Web-based annotation services have recently become available, they may not be the best solution for researchers that need to annotate a large number of genomes, possibly including proprietary data, and store them locally for further analysis. To address this need, we developed a standalone software application, the Annotation of microbial Genome Sequences (AGeS) system, which incorporates publicly available and in-house-developed bioinformatics tools and databases, many of which are parallelized for high-throughput performance. METHODOLOGY: The AGeS system supports three main capabilities. The first is the storage of input contig sequences and the resulting annotation data in a central, customized database. The second is the annotation of microbial genomes using an integrated software pipeline, which first analyzes contigs from high-throughput sequencing by locating genomic regions that code for proteins, RNA, and other genomic elements through the Do-It-Yourself Annotation (DIYA) framework. The identified protein-coding regions are then functionally annotated using the in-house-developed Pipeline for Protein Annotation (PIPA). The third capability is the visualization of annotated sequences using GBrowse. To date, we have implemented these capabilities for bacterial genomes. AGeS was evaluated by comparing its genome annotations with those provided by three other methods. Our results indicate that the software tools integrated into AGeS provide annotations that are in general agreement with those provided by the compared methods. This is demonstrated by a >94% overlap in the number of identified genes, a significant number of identical annotated features, and a >90% agreement in enzyme function predictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.