Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32264824›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2020

Using multiple reference genomes to identify and resolve annotation inconsistencies.

Patrick J Monnahan, Jean-Michel Michno, Christine O'Connor, Alex B Brohammer, Nathan M Springer, Suzanne E McGaugh, Candice N Hirsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Complete Genome Sequence and Structure of the OleaginousFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Patrick J MonnahanDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
Jean-Michel MichnoDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
Christine O'ConnorDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
Alex B BrohammerDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
Nathan M SpringerDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
Suzanne E McGaughDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
Candice N HirschDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA. cnhirsch@umn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8833-3023

Funding

Directorate for Biological Sciences IOS-1546727DuPont Pioneer NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in sequencing technologies have led to the release of reference genomes and annotations for multiple individuals within more well-studied systems. While each of these new genome assemblies shares significant portions of synteny between each other, the annotated structure of gene models within these regions can differ. Of particular concern are split-gene misannotations, in which a single gene is incorrectly annotated as two distinct genes or two genes are incorrectly annotated as a single gene. These misannotations can have major impacts on functional prediction, estimates of expression, and many downstream analyses.

resultsWe developed a high-throughput method based on pairwise comparisons of annotations that detect potential split-gene misannotations and quantifies support for whether the genes should be merged into a single gene model. We demonstrated the utility of our method using gene annotations of three reference genomes from maize (B73, PH207, and W22), a difficult system from an annotation perspective due to the size and complexity of the genome. On average, we found several hundred of these potential split-gene misannotations in each pairwise comparison, corresponding to 3-5% of gene models across annotations. To determine which state (i.e. one gene or multiple genes) is biologically supported, we utilized RNAseq data from 10 tissues throughout development along with a novel metric and simulation framework. The methods we have developed require minimal human interaction and can be applied to future assemblies to aid in annotation efforts.

conclusionsSplit-gene misannotations occur at appreciable frequency in maize annotations. We have developed a method to easily identify and correct these misannotations. Importantly, this method is generic in that it can utilize any type of short-read expression data. Failure to account for split-gene misannotations has serious consequences for biological inference, particularly for expression-based analyses.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalGene Expression Regulation, PlantHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationOpen Reading FramesSequence Analysis, RNATissue DistributionZea maysAnnotationGenome assemblyMaizeSplit-gene

Identifiers

PMID32264824
PMCPMC7140576

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.