Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22434843›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2012

Community gene annotation in practice.

Jane E Loveland, James G R Gilbert, Ed Griffiths, Jennifer L Harrow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Current transcriptomics in pig immunity research.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2015
    Review
  13. Comprehensive comparative homeobox gene annotation in human and mouse.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2015
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Detecting and comparing non-coding RNAs in the high-throughput era.International journal of molecular sciences · 2013
    Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Jane E LovelandWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SA, UK. jel@sanger.ac.uk
James G R Gilbert
Ed Griffiths
Jennifer L Harrow

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F02195X/1Wellcome Trust WT077198
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Manual annotation of genomic data is extremely valuable to produce an accurate reference gene set but is expensive compared with automatic methods and so has been limited to model organisms. Annotation tools that have been developed at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (WTSI, http://www.sanger.ac.uk/.) are being used to fill that gap, as they can be used remotely and so open up viable community annotation collaborations. We introduce the 'Blessed' annotator and 'Gatekeeper' approach to Community Annotation using the Otterlace/ZMap genome annotation tool. We also describe the strategies adopted for annotation consistency, quality control and viewing of the annotation. DATABASE URL: http://vega.sanger.ac.uk/index.html.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticSoftwareAnimalsGenomicsHumansMiceMolecular Sequence AnnotationUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID22434843
PMCPMC3308165

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.