ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2013
The automatic annotation of bacterial genomes.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 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
69 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large-scale benchmarking of prokaryotic annotation tools across thousands of species.Genome biology · 2026Article
- An optimized and integrated robust tool for pangenome generation.Functional & integrative genomics · 2026Article
- Gene-level analysis of core carbohydrate metabolism across the Enterobacteriaceae pan-genome.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Protein functional domain analysis enhances genotype-phenotype associations in comparative genomic studies ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Proteins à la carte: riboproteogenomic exploration of bacterial N-terminal proteoform expression.mBio · 2024Article
- ToxCodAn-Genome: an automated pipeline for toxin-gene annotation in genome assembly of venomous lineages.GigaScience · 2024Article
- Comparative Analyses of Bacteriophage Genomes.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Comprehensive analysis of genomic variation, pan-genome and biosynthetic potential of Corynebacterium glutamicum strains.PloS one · 2024Article
- From genotype to phenotype: computational approaches for inferring microbial traits relevant to the food industry.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2023Review
- Computation-aided studies related to the induction of specialized metabolite biosynthesis in microbial co-cultures: An introductory overview.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
- Propagation, detection and correction of errors using the sequence database network.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Review
- A Framework for the Systematic Selection of Biosensor Chassis for Environmental Synthetic Biology.ACS synthetic biology · 2022Review
- Small Proteins; Big Questions.Journal of bacteriology · 2022Article
- Hidden in plain sight: challenges in proteomics detection of small ORF-encoded polypeptides.microLife · 2022Article
- Prokaryotic Genome Annotation.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Genome-resolved metagenomics using environmental and clinical samples.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Review
- Accurate annotation of protein coding sequences with IDTAXA.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Whole-genome sequencing, genome mining, metabolic reconstruction and evolution of pentachlorophenol and other xenobiotic degradation pathways in Bacillus tropicus strain AOA-CPS1.Functional & integrative genomics · 2021Article
- Novel Enzymes From the Red Sea Brine Pools: Current State and Potential.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
- Article
9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the development of ultra-high-throughput technologies, the cost of sequencing bacterial genomes has been vastly reduced. As more genomes are sequenced, less time can be spent manually annotating those genomes, resulting in an increased reliance on automatic annotation pipelines. However, automatic pipelines can produce inaccurate genome annotation and their results often require manual curation. Here, we discuss the automatic and manual annotation of bacterial genomes, identify common problems introduced by the current genome annotation process and suggests potential solutions.
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.