ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017
A modified GC-specific MAKER gene annotation method reveals improved and novel gene predictions of high and low GC content in Oryza sativa.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolution of Locally Adaptive Chromosome Inversions in Mimulus guttatus.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Splicing neoantigen discovery with SNAF reveals shared targets for cancer immunotherapy.Science translational medicine · 2024Article
- A chromosome-scale reference of Chenopodium watsonii helps elucidate relationships within the North American A-genome Chenopodium species and with quinoa.The plant genome · 2023Article
- DNA methylation signatures of duplicate gene evolution in angiosperms.Plant physiology · 2023Article
- Genome of tetraploid sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) 'Montmorency' identifies three distinct ancestral Prunus genomes.Horticulture research · 2023Article
- Chromosome-scale genome assemblies and annotations for Poales species Carex cristatella, Carex scoparia, Juncus effusus, and Juncus inflexus.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Evaluating Plant Gene Models Using Machine Learning.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Genome of the Rio Pearlfish (Nematolebias whitei), a bi-annual killifish model for Eco-Evo-Devo in extreme environments.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Large structural variations in the haplotype-resolved African cassava genome.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2021Article
- The bowfin genome illuminates the developmental evolution of ray-finned fishes.Nature genetics · 2021Article
- GPRED-GC: a Gene PREDiction model accounting for 5BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Updated Genome Assembly and Annotation forG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2019Article
- Genome-wide association mapping of date palm fruit traits.Nature communications · 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate structural annotation depends on well-trained gene prediction programs. Training data for gene prediction programs are often chosen randomly from a subset of high-quality genes that ideally represent the variation found within a genome. One aspect of gene variation is GC content, which differs across species and is bimodal in grass genomes. When gene prediction programs are trained on a subset of grass genes with random GC content, they are effectively being trained on two classes of genes at once, and this can be expected to result in poor results when genes are predicted in new genome sequences.
resultsWe find that gene prediction programs trained on grass genes with random GC content do not completely predict all grass genes with extreme GC content. We show that gene prediction programs that are trained with grass genes with high or low GC content can make both better and unique gene predictions compared to gene prediction programs that are trained on genes with random GC content. By separately training gene prediction programs with genes from multiple GC ranges and using the programs within the MAKER genome annotation pipeline, we were able to improve the annotation of the Oryza sativa genome compared to using the standard MAKER annotation protocol. Gene structure was improved in over 13% of genes, and 651 novel genes were predicted by the GC-specific MAKER protocol.
conclusionsWe present a new GC-specific MAKER annotation protocol to predict new and improved gene models and assess the biological significance of this method in Oryza sativa. We expect that this protocol will also be beneficial for gene prediction in any organism with bimodal or other unusual gene GC content.
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.