Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7984428›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research1994

Intrinsic and extrinsic approaches for detecting genes in a bacterial genome.

M Borodovsky, K E Rudd, E V Koonin

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Prokaryotic Genome Annotation.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. EcoGene 3.0.Nucleic acids research · 2013
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Computational methods for exon detection.Molecular biotechnology · 1998
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M BorodovskySchool of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta 30332-0230.
K E Rudd
E V Koonin
National Center for Biotechnology Information · US

Funding

PREDICTION OF GENE LOCATIONS USING STOCHASTIC MODELSR01HG000783 · NHGRI · GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI BORODOVSKY, MARK · 1993 to 2014
$4.7M
DNA SEQUENCE DETERMINANTS OF NUCLEOSOME POSITIONINGR55GM047853 · NIGMS · GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI BORODOVSKY, MARK · 1992 to 1992
–
NHGRI NIH HHS HG00783NIGMS NIH HHS GM47853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unannotated regions of the Escherichia coli genome DNA sequence from the EcoSeq6 database, totaling 1,278 'intergenic' sequences of the combined length of 359,279 basepairs, were analyzed using computer-assisted methods with the aim of identifying putative unknown genes. The proposed strategy for finding new genes includes two key elements: i) prediction of expressed open reading frames (ORFs) using the GeneMark method based on Markov chain models for coding and non-coding regions of Escherichia coli DNA, and ii) search for protein sequence similarities using programs based on the BLAST algorithm and programs for motif identification. A total of 354 putative expressed ORFs were predicted by GeneMark. Using the BLASTX and TBLASTN programs, it was shown that 208 ORFs located in the unannotated regions of the E. coli chromosome are significantly similar to other protein sequences. Identification of 182 ORFs as probable genes was supported by GeneMark and BLAST, comprising 51.4% of the GeneMark 'hits' and 87.5% of the BLAST 'hits'. 73 putative new genes, comprising 20.6% of the GeneMark predictions, belong to ancient conserved protein families that include both eubacterial and eukaryotic members. This value is close to the overall proportion of highly conserved sequences among eubacterial proteins, indicating that the majority of the putative expressed ORFs that are predicted by GeneMark, but have no significant BLAST hits, nevertheless are likely to be real genes. The majority of the putative genes identified by BLAST search have been described since the release of the EcoSeq6 database, but about 70 genes have not been detected so far. Among these new identifications are genes encoding proteins with a variety of predicted functions including dehydrogenases, kinases, several other metabolic enzymes, ATPases, rRNA methyltransferases, membrane proteins, and different types of regulatory proteins.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualGenetic TechniquesGenome, BacterialOpen Reading FramesAmino Acid SequenceBase SequenceEscherichia coliGenes, BacterialMarkov ChainsMolecular Sequence DataSequence Homology, Amino AcidSoftware

Identifiers

PMID7984428
PMCPMC308528
OpenAlexW1986733193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.