ArticleBMC genomics2026
Widespread gene fusion artifacts in helminth genome annotations.
Article in BMC genomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent helminth genomes possess thousands of predicted fusion genes, encoding novel protein domain architectures that are unique to these species. To investigate this, we analyzed 20,313 two-domain proteins annotated in current helminth genomes, of which 10,297 are apparently unique to helminths, and used RNA-seq data from 20 species of helminth to examine their plausibility as true fusion genes. For comparison, we analyzed a set of 400 high confidence, evolutionarily conserved domain fusions that are present in both helminth and non-helminth species.
resultsOur analysis suggests that, in contrast to genuine fusion genes, the majority of helminth-specific fusion genes in the 20 species investigated are likely gene prediction artifacts based on several criteria: (1) they show a lack of correlation between RNA-seq derived expression levels of the first and second “fused” domains, as well as the interdomain region; (2) they have significantly longer interdomain regions; (3) there is significantly less continuity of coverage in their interdomain regions consistent with breakpoints in RNA-seq coverage; and (4) they are generally not supported in de novo transcriptome assemblies.
conclusionsProteins containing novel domain combinations have been included in widely used sequence and protein databases, including WormBase ParaSite and InterPro, but the analyses presented here suggest that many helminth-specific domain fusion proteins are erroneously annotated. These findings emphasize the importance of using RNA-seq data to validate gene predictions in helminth genomes, especially those with unique structures not observed in other species. Given the increasing need to accurately identify helminth-specific proteins as therapeutic targets, the accuracy of proteome annotation in widely used genomic databases is essential.
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.