Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22510764›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2012

A beginner's guide to eukaryotic genome annotation.

Mark Yandell, Daniel Ence

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 288 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
288citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

288 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Epigenome-wide meta-analysis of DNA methylation and childhood asthma.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. T2T genomes ofGenome research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparative genomics acrossFrontiers in genetics · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. GeneCAD: Plant Genome Annotation with a DNA Foundation Model.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article

228 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

2 authors.

Mark YandellDepartment of Human Genetics, Eccles Institute of Human Genetics, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-5330, USA. myandell@genetics.utah.edu
Daniel Ence

Funding

Software for the creation and quality control of genome annotationsR01HG004694 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI YANDELL, MARK DOUGLAS · 2008 to 2011
$2.2M
Genomics-based Venom Studies Using the Cone Snail C. BullatusR01GM099939 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI YANDELL, MARK DOUGLAS · 2012 to 2015
$1.1M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01-HG004694NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM099939
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The falling cost of genome sequencing is having a marked impact on the research community with respect to which genomes are sequenced and how and where they are annotated. Genome annotation projects have generally become small-scale affairs that are often carried out by an individual laboratory. Although annotating a eukaryotic genome assembly is now within the reach of non-experts, it remains a challenging task. Here we provide an overview of the genome annotation process and the available tools and describe some best-practice approaches.

Indexed as

IntronsBase SequenceDatabases, GeneticEukaryotaExonsGenomeGenomicsHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationMolecular Sequence DataQuality ControlRNASequence AlignmentSoftwareRNA

Identifiers

PMID22510764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.