Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31329826›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019

PHANOTATE: a novel approach to gene identification in phage genomes.

Katelyn McNair, Carol Zhou, Elizabeth A Dinsdale, Brian Souza, Robert A Edwards

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 210 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
210citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

210 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 304 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Genome sequences of sixMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Extensive library ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Genome sequences of 19Microbiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Characterization ofPHAGE (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

150 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katelyn McNairComputational Sciences Research Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA.
Carol ZhouLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA.
Elizabeth A DinsdaleDepartment of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA.
Brian SouzaLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA.
Robert A EdwardsComputational Sciences Research Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA.
San Diego State University · USLawrence Livermore National Laboratory · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationCurrently there are no tools specifically designed for annotating genes in phages. Several tools are available that have been adapted to run on phage genomes, but due to their underlying design, they are unable to capture the full complexity of phage genomes. Phages have adapted their genomes to be extremely compact, having adjacent genes that overlap and genes completely inside of other longer genes. This non-delineated genome structure makes it difficult for gene prediction using the currently available gene annotators. Here we present PHANOTATE, a novel method for gene calling specifically designed for phage genomes. Although the compact nature of genes in phages is a problem for current gene annotators, we exploit this property by treating a phage genome as a network of paths: where open reading frames are favorable, and overlaps and gaps are less favorable, but still possible. We represent this network of connections as a weighted graph, and use dynamic programing to find the optimal path.

resultsWe compare PHANOTATE to other gene callers by annotating a set of 2133 complete phage genomes from GenBank, using PHANOTATE and the three most popular gene callers. We found that the four programs agree on 82% of the total predicted genes, with PHANOTATE predicting more genes than the other three. We searched for these extra genes in both GenBank's non-redundant protein database and all of the metagenomes in the sequence read archive, and found that they are present at levels that suggest that these are functional protein-coding genes. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/deprekate/PHANOTATE. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

BacteriophagesGenome, ViralMetagenomeOpen Reading FramesSequence Analysis, DNASoftware

Identifiers

PMID31329826
PMCPMC6853651
OpenAlexW2941437619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.