ReviewMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024
Comparative Genome Annotation.
Review in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative gene annotation and orthology assignments across 301 species of Drosophilidae.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Comparative gene annotation and orthology assignments across 301 species of Drosophilidae.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Establishing genome sequencing and assembly for non-model and emerging model organisms: a brief guide.Frontiers in zoology · 2025Review
- Tiberius: end-to-end deep learning with an HMM for gene prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Newly sequenced genomes are being added to the tree of life at an unprecedented fast pace. A large proportion of such new genomes are phylogenetically close to previously sequenced and annotated genomes. In other cases, whole clades of closely related species or strains ought to be annotated simultaneously. Often, in subsequent studies, differences between the closely related species or strains are in the focus of research when the shared gene structures prevail. We here review methods for comparative structural genome annotation. The reviewed methods include classical approaches such as the alignment of protein sequences or protein profiles against the genome and comparative gene prediction methods that exploit a genome alignment to annotate either a single target genome or all input genomes simultaneously. We discuss how the methods depend on the phylogenetic placement of genomes, give advice on the choice of methods, and examine the consistency between gene structure annotations in an example. Furthermore, we provide practical advice on genome annotation in general.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38819560What 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.