ArticleGigaScience2024
Enhanced bovine genome annotation through integration of transcriptomics and epi-transcriptomics datasets facilitates genomic biology.
Article in GigaScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming beef quality through healthy breeding: a strategy to reduce carcinogenic compounds and enhance human health: a review.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025Review
- Identification of novel cattle (Bos taurus) genes and biological insights of their function in pre-implantation embryo development.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Enhanced bovine genome annotation through integration of transcriptomics and epi-transcriptomics datasets facilitates genomic biology.GigaScience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe accurate identification of the functional elements in the bovine genome is a fundamental requirement for high-quality analysis of data informing both genome biology and genomic selection. Functional annotation of the bovine genome was performed to identify a more complete catalog of transcript isoforms across bovine tissues.
resultsA total of 160,820 unique transcripts (50% protein coding) representing 34,882 unique genes (60% protein coding) were identified across tissues. Among them, 118,563 transcripts (73% of the total) were structurally validated by independent datasets (PacBio isoform sequencing data, Oxford Nanopore Technologies sequencing data, de novo assembled transcripts from RNA sequencing data) and comparison with Ensembl and NCBI gene sets. In addition, all transcripts were supported by extensive data from different technologies such as whole transcriptome termini site sequencing, RNA Annotation and Mapping of Promoters for the Analysis of Gene Expression, chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing, and assay for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing. A large proportion of identified transcripts (69%) were unannotated, of which 86% were produced by annotated genes and 14% by unannotated genes. A median of two 5' untranslated regions were expressed per gene. Around 50% of protein-coding genes in each tissue were bifunctional and transcribed both coding and noncoding isoforms. Furthermore, we identified 3,744 genes that functioned as noncoding genes in fetal tissues but as protein-coding genes in adult tissues. Our new bovine genome annotation extended more than 11,000 annotated gene borders compared to Ensembl or NCBI annotations. The resulting bovine transcriptome was integrated with publicly available quantitative trait loci data to study tissue-tissue interconnection involved in different traits and construct the first bovine trait similarity network.
conclusionsThese validated results show significant improvement over current bovine genome annotations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.