Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26204119›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

A Novel Quality Measure and Correction Procedure for the Annotation of Microbial Translation Initiation Sites.

Lex Overmars, Roland J Siezen, Christof Francke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Lex OvermarsCentre for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre (NBIC), Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Roland J SiezenCentre for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre (NBIC), Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Christof FranckeCentre for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre (NBIC), Nijmegen, the Netherlands; HAN BioCentre, University of Applied Sciences Arnhem Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The identification of translation initiation sites (TISs) constitutes an important aspect of sequence-based genome analysis. An erroneous TIS annotation can impair the identification of regulatory elements and N-terminal signal peptides, and also may flaw the determination of descent, for any particular gene. We have formulated a reference-free method to score the TIS annotation quality. The method is based on a comparison of the observed and expected distribution of all TISs in a particular genome given prior gene-calling. We have assessed the TIS annotations for all available NCBI RefSeq microbial genomes and found that approximately 87% is of appropriate quality, whereas 13% needs substantial improvement. We have analyzed a number of factors that could affect TIS annotation quality such as GC-content, taxonomy, the fraction of genes with a Shine-Dalgarno sequence and the year of publication. The analysis showed that only the first factor has a clear effect. We have then formulated a straightforward Principle Component Analysis-based TIS identification strategy to self-organize and score potential TISs. The strategy is independent of reference data and a priori calculations. A representative set of 277 genomes was subjected to the analysis and we found a clear increase in TIS annotation quality for the genomes with a low quality score. The PCA-based annotation was also compared with annotation with the current tool of reference, Prodigal. The comparison for the model genome of Escherichia coli K12 showed that both methods supplement each other and that prediction agreement can be used as an indicator of a correct TIS annotation. Importantly, the data suggest that the addition of a PCA-based strategy to a Prodigal prediction can be used to 'flag' TIS annotations for re-evaluation and in addition can be used to evaluate a given annotation in case a Prodigal annotation is lacking.

Indexed as

Principal Component AnalysisRegulatory Sequences, Ribonucleic AcidArchaeaBacteriaBase CompositionEscherichia coliOpen Reading FramesPeptide Chain Initiation, TranslationalRNA, ArchaealRNA, BacterialRNA, FungalRNA, MessengerSaccharomyces cerevisiaeRegulatory Sequences, Ribonucleic AcidRNA, ArchaealRNA, BacterialRNA, FungalRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID26204119
PMCPMC4512697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.