Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30379572›Full record

ReviewAnnual review of animal biosciences2019

Whole-Genome Alignment and Comparative Annotation.

Joel Armstrong, Ian T Fiddes, Mark Diekhans, Benedict Paten

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annual review of animal biosciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
–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

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Min-frame transformation enables more sensitive viral genome alignment.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Microbial Omics.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. KegAlign: Optimizing pairwise alignments with diagonal partitioning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Joel ArmstrongUC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA; email: bpaten@ucsc.edu.
Ian T FiddesUC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA; email: bpaten@ucsc.edu.
Mark DiekhansUC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA; email: bpaten@ucsc.edu.
Benedict PatenUC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA; email: bpaten@ucsc.edu.

Funding

GENCODE Resource ProjectU41HG007234 · NHGRI · SANGER INSTITUTE · PI FLICEK, PAUL · 2013 to 2020
$20.3M
Training SubprojectU54HG007990 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI HAUSSLER, DAVID H, PATTERSON, DAVID · 2014 to 2018
$14.8M
Evolution of new regulatory networks via genetic arms races between KRAB zinc finger proteins and retrotransposonsR01HG010329 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI SALAMA, SOFIE REDA · 2019 to 2022
$2.7M
Unbiased analysis of genomic correlates of gene expression in health and diseaseU01HL137183 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI HAUSSLER, DAVID H · 2017 to 2019
$1.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010329NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG007234NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG007990NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL137183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapidly improving sequencing technology coupled with computational developments in sequence assembly are making reference-quality genome assembly economical. Hundreds of vertebrate genome assemblies are now publicly available, and projects are being proposed to sequence thousands of additional species in the next few years. Such dense sampling of the tree of life should give an unprecedented new understanding of evolution and allow a detailed determination of the events that led to the wealth of biodiversity around us. To gain this knowledge, these new genomes must be compared through genome alignment (at the sequence level) and comparative annotation (at the gene level). However, different alignment and annotation methods have different characteristics; before starting a comparative genomics analysis, it is important to understand the nature of, and biases and limitations inherent in, the chosen methods. This review is intended to act as a technical but high-level overview of the field that should provide this understanding. We briefly survey the state of the genome alignment and comparative annotation fields and potential future directions for these fields in a new, large-scale era of comparative genomics.

Indexed as

GenomicsAnimalsGenomeMolecular Sequence Annotationcomparative genomicsgenome alignmentgenome annotation

Identifiers

PMID30379572
PMCPMC6450745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.