The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mixing genome annotation methods in a comparative analysis inflates the apparent number of lineage-specific genes
Published version of a preprint
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, Weisman et al. (2022) found that using heterogeneous genome annotations, a common approach in comparative genomics studies, spuriously inflated the number of lineage-specific genes, and suggested a similar effect on gene losses.”
From Annotation matters: the effect of structural gene annotation on orthology inference (2025) · cites this paper as Weisman et al. 2022
In the citing paper
“Protein length, a direct result from gene annotation, likely influences orthology inference (Weisman et al. 2022).”
From Annotation matters: the effect of structural gene annotation on orthology inference (2025) · cites this paper as Weisman et al. 2022
In the citing paper
“Poor orthology results can lead to erroneous conclusions, such as false gene losses and lineage-specific inferences (Weisman et al. 2022).”
From Annotation matters: the effect of structural gene annotation on orthology inference (2025) · cites this paper as Weisman et al. 2022
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
The evolutionary origin of orphan genes
Tautz, D., & Domazet-Lošo, T. (2011) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3053 · Cited by 764
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Khalturin, 2009, More than just orphans: are taxonomically-restricted genes important in evolution?, Trends Genet., 25, 404, 10.1016/j.tig.2009.07.006 · DOI
- Wilson, 2005, Orphans as taxonomically restricted and ecologically important genes, Microbiology, 151, 2499, 10.1099/mic.0.28146-0 · DOI
- McLysaght, 2015, New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 370, 20140332, 10.1098/rstb.2014.0332 · DOI
- Tautz, 2014, The discovery of de novo gene evolution, Perspect. Biol. Med., 57, 149, 10.1353/pbm.2014.0006 · DOI
- Domazet-Lošo, 2007, A phylostratigraphy approach to uncover the genomic history of major adaptations in metazoan lineages, Trends Genet., 23, 533, 10.1016/j.tig.2007.08.014 · DOI
- McLysaght, 2016, Open questions in the study of de novo genes: what, how and why, Nat. Rev. Genet., 17, 567, 10.1038/nrg.2016.78 · DOI
- Basile, 2017, The number of orphans in yeast and fly is drastically reduced by using combining searches in both proteomes and genomes, Preprint at bioRxiv
- Casola, 2018, From de novo to “de nono”: the majority of novel protein-coding genes identified with phylostratigraphy are old genes or recent duplicates, Genome Biol. Evol., 10, 2906
- Zile, 2020, Only a single taxonomically restricted gene family in the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup can be identified with high confidence, Genome Biol. Evol., 12, 1355, 10.1093/gbe/evaa127 · DOI · Paper page
- Wilson, 2017, Young genes are highly disordered as predicted by the preadaptation hypothesis of de novo gene birth, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 10.1038/s41559-017-0146 · DOI
- Thibaud-Nissen, 2016, P8008 the NCBI eukaryotic genome annotation pipeline, J. Anim. Sci., 94, 184, 10.2527/jas2016.94supplement4184x · DOI · Paper page
- Howe, 2021, Ensembl 2021, Nucleic Acids Res., 49, D884, 10.1093/nar/gkaa942 · DOI
- Larkin, 2008, FlyBase: updates to the Drosophila melanogaster knowledge base, Nucleic Acids Res., 49, D899, 10.1093/nar/gkaa1026 · DOI
- Howe, 2012, WormBase: annotating many nematode genomes, Worm., 1, 15, 10.4161/worm.19574 · DOI
- Giraldo-Calderón, 2015, VectorBase: an updated bioinformatics resource for invertebrate vectors and other organisms related with human diseases, Nucleic Acids Res., 43, D707, 10.1093/nar/gku1117 · DOI
- Yandell, 2012, A beginner's guide to eukaryotic genome annotation, Nat. Rev. Genet., 13, 329, 10.1038/nrg3174 · DOI · Paper page
- Altschul, 1990, Basic local alignment search tool, J. Mol. Biol., 215, 403, 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 · DOI · Paper page
- James, 2021, Universal and taxon-specific trends in protein sequences as a function of age, eLife, 10, e57347, 10.7554/eLife.57347 · DOI
- Foy, 2019, A shift in aggregation avoidance strategy marks a long-term direction to protein evolution, Genetics, 211, 1345, 10.1534/genetics.118.301719 · DOI
- Willis, 2018, Gene birth contributes to structural disorder encoded by overlapping genes, Genetics, 210, 303, 10.1534/genetics.118.301249 · DOI
- Carvunis, 2012, Proto-genes and de novo gene birth, Nature, 487, 370, 10.1038/nature11184 · DOI · Paper page
- Vakirlis, 2018, A molecular portrait of de novo genes in yeasts, Mol. Biol. Evol., 35, 631, 10.1093/molbev/msx315 · DOI
- Weisman, 2020, Many, but not all, lineage-specific genes can be explained by homology detection failure, PLoS Biol., 18, e3000862, 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000862 · DOI
- Moyers, 2016, Evaluating phylostratigraphic evidence for widespread de novo gene birth in genome evolution, Mol. Biol. Evol., 33, 1245, 10.1093/molbev/msw008 · DOI
- Neme, 2013, Phylogenetic patterns of emergence of new genes support a model of frequent de novo evolution, BMC Genomics, 14, 117, 10.1186/1471-2164-14-117 · DOI
- Van Oss, 2019, De novo gene birth, PLoS Genet., 15, e1008160, 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008160 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhao, L., Svetec, N., & Begun, D. J. (2024) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genet-111523-102413 · Cited by 38
Annotation matters: the effect of structural gene annotation on orthology inference
Prieto-Baños, S., Nevers, Y., Altenhoff, A., Warwick Vesztrocy, A., Dessimoz, C., & Glover, N. M. (2025) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaf365 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Weisman, C. M., Murray, A. W., & Eddy, S. R.
- ORCID
- Weisman, Caroline M.
- Venue
- Current Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-06
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2632-2639.e2
- ISSN
- 0960-9822
- PMC
- PMC9346927
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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: Mixing genome annotation methods in a comparative analysis inflates the apparent number of lineage-specific genes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cub.2022.04.085
- The paper
- Weisman, C. M., Murray, A. W., & Eddy, S. R. (2022). Mixing genome annotation methods in a comparative analysis inflates the apparent number of lineage-specific genes. Current Biology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.04.085
