Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36159890›Full record

ArticlePHAGE (New Rochelle, N.Y.)2021

Phage Genome Annotation: Where to Begin and End.

Anastasiya Shen, Andrew Millard

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 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing 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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Genome characterization ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  8. Rolling outMicrobial genomics · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Three Novel Bacteriophages for the Biocontrol ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  14. Computational function prediction of bacteria and phage proteins.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2025
    Review
  15. Isolation and characterization of a novel phage targeting Klebsiella pneumoniae K2 capsular type.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Anastasiya ShenCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Andrew MillardDepartment of Genetics and Genome Biology, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3895-2854

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L015080/1Medical Research Council MR/T030062/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the renewed interest in phage research, coupled with the rising accessibility to affordable sequencing, ever increasing numbers of phage genomes are being sequenced. Therefore, there is an increased need to assemble and annotate phage genomes. There is a plethora of tools and platforms that allow phage genomes to be assembled and annotated. The choice of tools can often be bewildering for those new to phage genome assembly. Here we provide an overview of the assembly and annotation process from obtaining raw reads to genome submission, with worked examples, providing those new to genome assembly and annotation with a guided pathway to genome submission. We focus on the use of open access tools that can be incorporated into workflows to allow easy repetition of steps, highlighting multiple tools that can be used and common pitfalls that may occur.

Indexed as

genome annotationgenome assemblyphage

Identifiers

PMID36159890
PMCPMC9041514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.