Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26283419›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

BEACON: automated tool for Bacterial GEnome Annotation ComparisON.

Manal Kalkatawi, Intikhab Alam, Vladimir B Bajic

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. StORF-Reporter: finding genes between genes.Nucleic acids research · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evolution ofPeerJ · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Genome annotation of disease-causing microorganisms.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021
    Review
  9. PeerJ · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Complete Genome Sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Network Analyses in Plant Pathogens.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Review
  20. Review
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.

Manal KalkatawiComputational Bioscience Research Centre (CBRC), King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), 23955-6900, Thuwal, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. manal.kalkatawi@kaust.edu.sa.
Intikhab AlamComputational Bioscience Research Centre (CBRC), King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), 23955-6900, Thuwal, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. intikhab.alam@kaust.edu.sa.
Vladimir B BajicComputational Bioscience Research Centre (CBRC), King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), 23955-6900, Thuwal, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. vladimir.bajic@kaust.edu.sa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenome annotation is one way of summarizing the existing knowledge about genomic characteristics of an organism. There has been an increased interest during the last several decades in computer-based structural and functional genome annotation. Many methods for this purpose have been developed for eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Our study focuses on comparison of functional annotations of prokaryotic genomes. To the best of our knowledge there is no fully automated system for detailed comparison of functional genome annotations generated by different annotation methods (AMs).

resultsThe presence of many AMs and development of new ones introduce needs to: a/ compare different annotations for a single genome, and b/ generate annotation by combining individual ones. To address these issues we developed an Automated Tool for Bacterial GEnome Annotation ComparisON (BEACON) that benefits both AM developers and annotation analysers. BEACON provides detailed comparison of gene function annotations of prokaryotic genomes obtained by different AMs and generates extended annotations through combination of individual ones. For the illustration of BEACON's utility, we provide a comparison analysis of multiple different annotations generated for four genomes and show on these examples that the extended annotation can increase the number of genes annotated by putative functions up to 27%, while the number of genes without any function assignment is reduced.

conclusionsWe developed BEACON, a fast tool for an automated and a systematic comparison of different annotations of single genomes. The extended annotation assigns putative functions to many genes with unknown functions. BEACON is available under GNU General Public License version 3.0 and is accessible at: http://www.cbrc.kaust.edu.sa/BEACON/ .

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticMolecular Sequence AnnotationSoftware

Identifiers

PMID26283419
PMCPMC4539851

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.