ArticleGigaScience2018
Improving the annotation of the Heterorhabditis bacteriophora genome.
Article in GigaScience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Single-worm long-read sequencing reveals genome diversity in free-living nematodes.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- StringentJournal of nematology · 2023Article
- RNA-Sequencing of Heterorhabditis nematodes to identify factors involved in symbiosis with Photorhabdus bacteria.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Nematode chromosomes.Genetics · 2022Review
- The community-curated Pristionchus pacificus genome facilitates automated gene annotation improvement in related nematodes.BMC genomics · 2021Article
- Evolution of Developmental GATA Factors in Nematodes.Journal of developmental biology · 2020Article
- Characterization of the phenotypic and genotypic tolerance to abiotic stresses of natural populations of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Improved Genome Assembly and Annotation of the Soybean Aphid (G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020Article
- Crowdsourcing and the feasibility of manual gene annotation: A pilot study in the nematode Pristionchus pacificus.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Improving the annotation of the Heterorhabditis bacteriophora genome.GigaScience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Genome assembly and annotation remain exacting tasks. As the tools available for these tasks improve, it is useful to return to data produced with earlier techniques to assess their credibility and correctness. The entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis bacteriophora is widely used to control insect pests in horticulture. The genome sequence for this species was reported to encode an unusually high proportion of unique proteins and a paucity of secreted proteins compared to other related nematodes. Findings: We revisited the H. bacteriophora genome assembly and gene predictions to determine whether these unusual characteristics were biological or methodological in origin. We mapped an independent resequencing dataset to the genome and used the blobtools pipeline to identify potential contaminants. While present (0.2% of the genome span, 0.4% of predicted proteins), assembly contamination was not significant. Conclusions: Re-prediction of the gene set using BRAKER1 and published transcriptome data generated a predicted proteome that was very different from the published one. The new gene set had a much reduced complement of unique proteins, better completeness values that were in line with other related species' genomes, and an increased number of proteins predicted to be secreted. It is thus likely that methodological issues drove the apparent uniqueness of the initial H. bacteriophora genome annotation and that similar contamination and misannotation issues affect other published genome assemblies.
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.