Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37601314›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences

Welcome to the big leaves: Best practices for improving genome annotation in non-model plant genomes.

Vidya S Vuruputoor, Daniel Monyak, Karl C Fetter, Cynthia Webster, Akriti Bhattarai, Bikash Shrestha, Sumaira Zaman, Jeremy Bennett, Susan L McEvoy, Madison Caballero and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applications in plant sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Vidya S VuruputoorDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5836-7054
Daniel MonyakDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.
Karl C FetterDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9234-9300
Cynthia WebsterDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8646-1398
Akriti BhattaraiDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.
Bikash ShresthaDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6349-3007
Sumaira ZamanDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1126-1906
Jeremy BennettDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.
Susan L McEvoyDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0028-4299
Madison CaballeroDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4499-5105
Jill L WegrzynDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut 06269 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5923-0888

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Premise: Robust standards to evaluate quality and completeness are lacking in eukaryotic structural genome annotation, as genome annotation software is developed using model organisms and typically lacks benchmarking to comprehensively evaluate the quality and accuracy of the final predictions. The annotation of plant genomes is particularly challenging due to their large sizes, abundant transposable elements, and variable ploidies. This study investigates the impact of genome quality, complexity, sequence read input, and method on protein-coding gene predictions. Methods: The impact of repeat masking, long-read and short-read inputs, and de novo and genome-guided protein evidence was examined in the context of the popular BRAKER and MAKER workflows for five plant genomes. The annotations were benchmarked for structural traits and sequence similarity. Results: Benchmarks that reflect gene structures, reciprocal similarity search alignments, and mono-exonic/multi-exonic gene counts provide a more complete view of annotation accuracy. Transcripts derived from RNA-read alignments alone are not sufficient for genome annotation. Gene prediction workflows that combine evidence-based and ab initio approaches are recommended, and a combination of short and long reads can improve genome annotation. Adding protein evidence from de novo assemblies, genome-guided transcriptome assemblies, or full-length proteins from OrthoDB generates more putative false positives as implemented in the current workflows. Post-processing with functional and structural filters is highly recommended. Discussion: While the annotation of non-model plant genomes remains complex, this study provides recommendations for inputs and methodological approaches. We discuss a set of best practices to generate an optimal plant genome annotation and present a more robust set of metrics to evaluate the resulting predictions.

Indexed as

BRAKERgene identificationgenome annotationMAKERplant genomesStringTie2TSEBRA

Identifiers

PMID37601314
PMCPMC10439824

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.