ArticleViruses2025
High-Performance Genome Annotation for a Safer and Faster-Developing Phage Therapy.
Article in Viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Precision phage therapy in the AI/ML era: a systematic review of discovery-to-clinical translation evidence.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Virological and Pharmaceutical Properties of Clinically Relevant Phages.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Phage therapy, which uses phages to decrease bacterial load in an ecosystem, introduces a multitude of gene copies (bacterial and phage) into said ecosystem. While it is widely accepted that phages have a significant impact on ecology, the mechanisms underlying their impact are not well understood. It is therefore paramount to understand what is released in the said ecosystem, to avoid alterations with difficult-to-predict-but potentially huge-consequences. An in-depth annotation of therapeutic phage genomes is therefore essential. Currently, the average published phage genome has only 20-30% functionally annotated genes, which represents a hurdle to overcome to deliver safe phage therapy, for both patients and the environment. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of manual versus automated phage genome annotation methods. Twenty-seven phage genomes were annotated using SEA-PHAGE and Rime Bioinformatics protocols. The structural (gene calling) and functional annotation results were compared. The results suggest that during the structural annotation step, the SEA-PHAGE method was able to identify an average of 1.5 more genes per phage (typically a frameshift gene) and 5.3 gene start sites per phage. Despite this difference, the impact on functional annotation appeared to be limited: on average, 1.2 genes per phage had erroneous functions, caused by the structural annotation. Rime Bioinformatics' tool (rTOOLS, v2) performed better at assigning functions, especially where the SEA-PHAGE methods assigned hypothetical proteins: 7.0 genes per phage had a better functional annotation on average, compared to SEA PHAGE's 1.7. The method comparison detailed in this article indicate that (1) manual structural annotation is marginally superior to rTOOLS automated structural annotation; (2) rTOOLS automated functional annotation is superior to manual functional annotation. Previously, the only way to obtain a high-quality annotation was by using manual protocols, such as SEA-PHAGES. In the relatively new field of phage therapy, which requires support to advance, manual work can be problematic due to its high cost. Rime Bioinformatics' rTOOLS software allows for time and money to be saved by providing high-quality genome annotations that are comparable to manual results, enabling a safer and faster-developing phage therapy.
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.