The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Proteogenomic mapping as a complementary method to perform genome annotation
Abstract
The accelerated rate of genomic sequencing has led to an abundance of completely sequenced genomes. Annotation of the open reading frames (ORFs) ( i.e. , gene prediction) in these genomes is an important task and is most often performed computationally based on features in the nucleic acid sequence. Using recent advances in proteomics, we set out to predict the set of ORFs for an organism based principally on expressed protein‐based evidence. Using a novel search strategy, we mapped peptides detected in a whole‐cell lysate of Mycoplasma pneumoniae onto a genomic scaffold and extended these “hits” into ORFs bound by traditional genetic signals to generate a “proteogenomic map”. We were able to generate an ORF model for M. pneumoniae strain FH using proteomic data with a high correlation to models based on sequence features. Ultimately, we detected over 81% of the genomically predicted ORFs in M. pneumoniae strain M129 (the originally sequenced strain). We were also able to detect several new ORFs not originally predicted by genomic methods, various N ‐terminal extensions, and some evidence that would suggest that certain predicted ORFs are bogus. Some of these differences may be a result of the strain analyzed but demonstrate the robustness of protein analysis across closely related genomes. This technique is a cost‐effective means to add value to genome annotation, and a prerequisite for proteome quantitation and in vivo interaction measures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags
Gygi, S. P., Rist, B., Gerber, S. A., Turecek, F., Gelb, M. H., & Aebersold, R. (1999) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/13690 · Cited by 4,683
Cited by
A chromosome-based draft sequence of the hexaploid bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) genome
The International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium (IWGSC), Mayer, K. F. X., Rogers, J., Doležel, J., Pozniak, C., Eversole, K., Feuillet, C., Gill, B., Friebe, B., Lukaszewski, A. J., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1251788 · Cited by 1,583
Quantification of mRNA and protein and integration with protein turnover in a bacterium
Maier, T., Schmidt, A., Güell, M., Kühner, S., Gavin, A., Aebersold, R., & Serrano, L. (2011) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.1038/msb.2011.38 · Cited by 297
A comprehensive proteome map of growing Bacillus subtilis cells
Eymann, C., Dreisbach, A., Albrecht, D., Bernhardt, J., Becher, D., Gentner, S., Tam, L. T., Büttner, K., Buurman, G., Scharf, C., et al. (2004) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.200400907 · Cited by 286
Brosch, M., Saunders, G. I., Frankish, A., Collins, M. O., Yu, L., Wright, J., Verstraten, R., Adams, D. J., Harrow, J., Choudhary, J. S., et al. (2011) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.114272.110 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Jaffe, J. D., Berg, H. C., & Church, G. M.
- Venue
- PROTEOMICS
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-77
- ISSN
- 1615-9853 (ISSN-L)
- 1615-9861
- OpenAlex
- W2021653707
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Proteogenomic mapping as a complementary method to perform genome annotation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pmic.200300511
- The paper
- Jaffe, J. D., Berg, H. C., & Church, G. M. (2004). Proteogenomic mapping as a complementary method to perform genome annotation. PROTEOMICS. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200300511
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.