Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21771858›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2011

Misannotations of rRNA can now generate 90% false positive protein matches in metatranscriptomic studies.

H James Tripp, Ian Hewson, Sam Boyarsky, Joshua M Stuart, Jonathan P Zehr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. rRNAFilter: A Fast Approach for Ribosomal RNA Read Removal Without a Reference Database.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. AntiFam: a tool to help identify spurious ORFs in protein annotation.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2012
    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.

H James TrippDepartment of Ocean Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.
Ian Hewson
Sam Boyarsky
Joshua M Stuart
Jonathan P Zehr

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the course of analyzing 9,522,746 pyrosequencing reads from 23 stations in the Southwestern Pacific and equatorial Atlantic oceans, it came to our attention that misannotations of rRNA as proteins is now so widespread that false positive matching of rRNA pyrosequencing reads to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) non-redundant protein database approaches 90%. One conserved portion of 23S rRNA was consistently misannotated often enough to prompt curators at Pfam to create a spurious protein family. Detailed examination of the annotation history of each seed sequence in the spurious Pfam protein family (PF10695, 'Cw-hydrolase') uncovered issues in the standard operating procedures and quality assurance programs of major sequencing centers, and other issues relating to the curation practices of those managing public databases such as GenBank and SwissProt. We offer recommendations for all these issues, and recommend as well that workers in the field of metatranscriptomics take extra care to avoid including false positive matches in their datasets.

Indexed as

Genes, rRNAMetagenomicsMolecular Sequence AnnotationTranscriptomeAlphaproteobacteriaArchaeaBacteriaDatabases, Nucleic AcidHydrolasesOperonPseudogenesRNA, AntisenseSequence Analysis, DNAHydrolasesRNA, Antisense

Identifiers

PMID21771858
PMCPMC3203614

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.