ArticleScientific data2026
Annotation of 200 Insect Genomes with BRAKER for Consistent Comparisons across Species.
Article in Scientific data, 2026. 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.
- AccuratebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Annotation of 200 Insect Genomes with BRAKER for Consistent Comparisons across Species.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Comparative genomics suggests extensive antithrombotic gene expansion in Haemadipsa yanyuanensis.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- EASYstrata: an all-in-one workflow for genome annotation and genomic divergence analysis.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 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
Abstract
The annotation of genomes progresses slower than their sequencing and assembly. Also, species that were previously annotated can benefit from reannotation using more recent RNA-Seq and protein data, as well as from state-of-the-art annotation methods whose accuracy has improved. Heterogeneous annotations performed with different tools and protein databases can introduce artifactual differences when comparing gene sets or gene structures between species. Recently, the BRAKER3 annotation pipeline was introduced that integrates evidence from RNA-Seq and a protein database. Here, we introduce an automated genome annotation workflow based on BRAKER3 that allows one to annotate a list of species with minimal manual intervention. We selected a diverse set of 200 insect species from different families, including 85 species previously lacking annotations in GenBank. Using currently available RNA-Seq and protein sequence data, we applied our automated workflow to annotate these genomes and conducted downstream analyses typically performed in comparative genomics studies. We present the resulting gene structures, protein sequences, gene ontology terms, orthologous gene groups and a species tree.
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.