Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28062412›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2018

Plant genome and transcriptome annotations: from misconceptions to simple solutions.

Marie E Bolger, Borjana Arsova, Björn Usadel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. First draft genome of the decaploid species,GigaByte (Hong Kong, China) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Elucidating the Mesocarp Drupe Transcriptome of Açai (International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. NewAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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.

Marie E BolgerForschungszentrum Jülich, Wilhelm Johnen Str, 52428, Jülich, Germany.
Borjana ArsovaForschungszentrum Jülich, Wilhelm Johnen Str, 52428, Jülich, Germany.
Björn UsadelForschungszentrum Jülich, Wilhelm Johnen Str, 52428, Jülich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing has triggered an explosion of available genomic and transcriptomic resources in the plant sciences. Although genome and transcriptome sequencing has become orders of magnitudes cheaper and more efficient, often the functional annotation process is lagging behind. This might be hampered by the lack of a comprehensive enumeration of simple-to-use tools available to the plant researcher. In this comprehensive review, we present (i) typical ontologies to be used in the plant sciences, (ii) useful databases and resources used for functional annotation, (iii) what to expect from an annotated plant genome, (iv) an automated annotation pipeline and (v) a recipe and reference chart outlining typical steps used to annotate plant genomes/transcriptomes using publicly available resources.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantSoftwareTranscriptomeGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMolecular Sequence AnnotationPlant ProteinsPlantsPlant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID28062412
PMCPMC5952960

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.