Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31827189›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Crowdsourcing and the feasibility of manual gene annotation: A pilot study in the nematode Pristionchus pacificus.

Christian Rödelsperger, Marina Athanasouli, Maša Lenuzzi, Tobias Theska, Shuai Sun, Mohannad Dardiry, Sara Wighard, Wen Hu, Devansh Raj Sharma, Ziduan Han

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Novel and improvedbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian RödelspergerMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. christian.roedelsperger@tuebingen.mpg.de.
Marina AthanasouliMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Maša LenuzziMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Tobias TheskaMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Shuai SunMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Mohannad DardiryMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Sara WighardMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Wen HuMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Devansh Raj SharmaMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Ziduan HanMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Department for Integrative Evolutionary Biology, Max-Planck-Ring 9, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nematodes such as Caenorhabditis elegans are powerful systems to study basically all aspects of biology. Their species richness together with tremendous genetic knowledge from C. elegans facilitate the evolutionary study of biological functions using reverse genetics. However, the ability to identify orthologs of candidate genes in other species can be hampered by erroneous gene annotations. To improve gene annotation in the nematode model organism Pristionchus pacificus, we performed a genome-wide screen for C. elegans genes with potentially incorrectly annotated P. pacificus orthologs. We initiated a community-based project to manually inspect more than two thousand candidate loci and to propose new gene models based on recently generated Iso-seq and RNA-seq data. In most cases, misannotation of C. elegans orthologs was due to artificially fused gene predictions and completely missing gene models. The community-based curation raised the gene count from 25,517 to 28,036 and increased the single copy ortholog completeness level from 86% to 97%. This pilot study demonstrates how even small-scale crowdsourcing can drastically improve gene annotations. In future, similar approaches can be used for other species, gene sets, and even larger communities thus making manual annotation of large parts of the genome feasible.

Indexed as

Genes, HelminthMolecular Sequence AnnotationAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansCatalogs as TopicFeasibility StudiesGenes, SyntheticGenome, HelminthPilot ProjectsRhabditidaSpecies SpecificityTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID31827189
PMCPMC6906410
OpenAlexW2996027307

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.