Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26594309›Full record

ArticleStandards in genomic sciences2015

Annotation inconsistencies beyond sequence similarity-based function prediction - phylogeny and genome structure.

Vasilis J Promponas, Ioannis Iliopoulos, Christos A Ouzounis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Standards in genomic sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Large Numbers of New Human Paralogs Discovered.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Hybrid assembly ofIMA fungus · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Leveraging Curation AmongFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  19. Misannotations of the genes encoding sugar N-formyltransferases.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2020
    Article
  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.

Vasilis J PromponasBioinformatics Research Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cyprus, PO Box 20537, CY-1678 Nicosia, Cyprus.
Ioannis IliopoulosDivision of Medical Sciences, University of Crete Medical School, GR-71110 Heraklion, Greece.
Christos A OuzounisBiological Computation & Process Laboratory (BCPL), Chemical Process & Energy Resources Institute (CPERI), Centre for Research & Technology Hellas (CERTH), PO Box 361, GR-57001 Thessalonica, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The function annotation process in computational biology has increasingly shifted from the traditional characterization of individual biochemical roles of protein molecules to the system-wide detection of entire metabolic pathways and genomic structures. The so-called genome-aware methods broaden misannotation inconsistencies in genome sequences beyond protein function assignments, encompassing phylogenetic anomalies and artifactual genomic regions. We outline three categories of error propagation in databases by providing striking examples - at various levels of appreciation by the community from traditional to emerging, thus raising awareness for future solutions.

Indexed as

Error propagationGenome-aware methodsGenome evolutionGenome structureGenome-wide annotationMis-annotation modelingNext-generation sequencingProtein function prediction

Identifiers

PMID26594309
PMCPMC4653902

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.