ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Genome assemblies and annotations are not static and need support for tracking their evolution.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For over 25 years, genomic data have been distributed in two key file formats: FASTA and GFF. These formats are used in nearly all genomic analyses and encode both genomic sequence data and the positions of annotated features. Long-read sequencing, chromatin conformation capture, and advanced assembly algorithms now enable chromosome-level assemblies and pangenomes even for the largest eukaryotic genomes. Genome consortia routinely update assemblies and re-annotate gene models as methods and knowledge improve, yet these updates occur without systematic documentation of what has been modified. As genomics enters the next era, the lack of systematic versioning becomes limiting: different annotation versions cannot be computationally compared, algorithmic improvements are invisible to downstream users, and accumulated biological knowledge exists only in human-readable documentation disconnected from the data itself. Conventional flat-file formats lack the structure to reflect this evolving landscape. While software engineering solved analogous challenges with version control decades ago, for genomics, version control is left to researchers to organise with filenames, directories, or README files. This approach cannot scale to the continuous generation and improvement of millions of genomes. We examine the limitations of genome file formats, demonstrate why incremental improvements are insufficient, and argue that genomics must adopt version control with the same gusto that is applied to generating new sequencing data. Drawing on lessons from software engineering, we outline requirements for better scientific collaboration, machine-readable formats that can capture changes, maintain complete provenance, and enable the reproducible, large-scale biology that the next 25 years demands.
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.