ArticleCurrent microbiology2018
Achieving Accurate Sequence and Annotation Data for Caulobacter vibrioides CB13.
Article in Current microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- NovelFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Recombination and gene loss occur simultaneously during bacterial horizontal gene transfer.PloS one · 2020Article
- Genome Comparisons of Wild Isolates of Caulobacter crescentus Reveal Rates of Inversion and Horizontal Gene Transfer.Current microbiology · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Annotated sequence data are instrumental in nearly all realms of biology. However, the advent of next-generation sequencing has rapidly facilitated an imbalance between accurate sequence data and accurate annotation data. To increase the annotation accuracy of the Caulobacter vibrioides CB13b1a (CB13) genome, we compared the PGAP and RAST annotations of the CB13 genome. A total of 64 unique genes were identified in the PGAP annotation that were either completely or partially absent in the RAST annotation, and a total of 16 genes were identified in the RAST annotation that were not included in the PGAP annotation. Moreover, PGAP identified 73 frameshifted genes and 22 genes with an internal stop. In contrast, RAST annotated the larger segment of these frameshifted genes without indicating a change in reading frame may have occurred. The RAST annotation did not include any genes with internal stop codons, since it chose start codons that were after the internal stop. To confirm the discrepancies between the two annotations and verify the accuracy of the CB13 genome sequence data, we re-sequenced and re-annotated the entire genome and obtained an identical sequence, except in a small number of homopolymer regions. A genome sequence comparison between the two versions allowed us to determine the correct number of bases in each homopolymer region, which eliminated frameshifts for 31 genes annotated as frameshifted genes and removed 24 pseudogenes from the PGAP annotation. Both annotation systems correctly identified genes that were missed by the other system. In addition, PGAP identified conserved gene fragments that represented the beginning of genes, but it employed no corrective method to adjust the reading frame of frameshifted genes or the start sites of genes harboring an internal stop codon. In doing so, the PGAP annotation identified a large number of pseudogenes, which may reflect evolutionary history but likely do not produce gene products. These results demonstrate that re-sequencing and annotation comparisons can be used to increase the accuracy of genomic data and the corresponding gene annotation.
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.