ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017
Assessment of genome annotation using gene function similarity within the gene neighborhood.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- PPA-GCN: A Efficient GCN Framework for Prokaryotic Pathways Assignment.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Twelve quick steps for genome assembly and annotation in the classroom.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Article
- Genome Mining and Comparative Pathogenomic Analysis of An Endemic Methicillin-ResistantPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunctional annotation of bacterial genomes is an obligatory and crucially important step of information processing from the genome sequences into cellular mechanisms. However, there is a lack of computational methods to evaluate the quality of functional assignments.
resultsWe developed a genome-scale model that assigns Bayesian probability to each gene utilizing a known property of functional similarity between neighboring genes in bacteria.
conclusionsOur model clearly distinguished true annotation from random annotation with Bayesian annotation probability >0.95. Our model will provide a useful guide to quantitatively evaluate functional annotation methods and to detect gene sets with reliable annotations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.