Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31843001›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2019

Benchmarking transposable element annotation methods for creation of a streamlined, comprehensive pipeline.

Shujun Ou, Weija Su, Yi Liao, Kapeel Chougule, Jireh R A Agda, Adam J Hellinga, Carlos Santiago Blanco Lugo, Tyler A Elliott, Doreen Ware, Thomas Peterson and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 966 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
966citing papers in PubMed
101.8field-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

966 citing papers in PubMed, 1,438 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Shujun OuDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
Weija SuDepartment of Genetics, Development, and Cell Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
Yi LiaoDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.
Kapeel ChouguleCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 11724, USA.
Jireh R A AgdaCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Adam J HellingaCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Carlos Santiago Blanco LugoCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Tyler A ElliottCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Doreen WareCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 11724, USA.
Thomas PetersonDepartment of Genetics, Development, and Cell Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
Ning JiangDepartment of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. jiangn@msu.edu.
Candice N HirschDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, 55108, USA. cnhirsch@umn.edu.
Matthew B HuffordDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA. mhufford@iastate.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3945-1143
Iowa State University · USUniversity of Guelph · CACold Spring Harbor Laboratory · USCornell University · USMichigan State University · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSequencing technology and assembly algorithms have matured to the point that high-quality de novo assembly is possible for large, repetitive genomes. Current assemblies traverse transposable elements (TEs) and provide an opportunity for comprehensive annotation of TEs. Numerous methods exist for annotation of each class of TEs, but their relative performances have not been systematically compared. Moreover, a comprehensive pipeline is needed to produce a non-redundant library of TEs for species lacking this resource to generate whole-genome TE annotations.

resultsWe benchmark existing programs based on a carefully curated library of rice TEs. We evaluate the performance of methods annotating long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons, terminal inverted repeat (TIR) transposons, short TIR transposons known as miniature inverted transposable elements (MITEs), and Helitrons. Performance metrics include sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, FDR, and F

conclusionsThe benchmarking results and pipeline developed here will greatly facilitate TE annotation in eukaryotic genomes. These annotations will promote a much more in-depth understanding of the diversity and evolution of TEs at both intra- and inter-species levels. EDTA is open-source and freely available: https://github.com/oushujun/EDTA.

Indexed as

DNA Transposable ElementsAnimalsBenchmarkingHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationSoftwareDNA Transposable ElementsAnnotationBenchmarkingGenomePipelineTransposable element

Identifiers

PMID31843001
PMCPMC6913007
OpenAlexW2994632914

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.