Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35083439›Full record

ArticlePHAGE (New Rochelle, N.Y.)2021

Phage Annotation Guide: Guidelines for Assembly and High-Quality Annotation.

Dann Turner, Evelien M Adriaenssens, Igor Tolstoy, Andrew M Kropinski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PHAGE (New Rochelle, N.Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing 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

58 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Complete genome sequence of the phage UNICOR_HM-QL, aMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Computational function prediction of bacteria and phage proteins.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Basic knowledge of phages and their therapeutic application].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. NewPHAGE (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Dann TurnerDepartment of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0249-4513
Evelien M AdriaenssensQuadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4826-5406
Igor TolstoyViral Resources, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Andrew M KropinskiDepartment of Food Science, and University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6871-6799

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10353Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All sequencing projects of bacteriophages (phages) should seek to report an accurate and comprehensive annotation of their genomes. This article defines 14 questions for those new to phage genomics that should be addressed before submitting a genome sequence to the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration or writing a publication.

Indexed as

annotation guidebacteriophagesgenome annotationgenomicsphagesphage taxonomy

Identifiers

PMID35083439
PMCPMC8785237

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.