CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 588

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A beginner’s guide to eukaryotic genome annotation

Yandell, Mark, Ence, Daniel·2012·Nature Reviews Genetics
DOI 10.1038/nrg3174
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The falling cost of genome sequencing is having a marked impact on the research community with respect to which genomes are sequenced and how and where they are annotated. Genome annotation projects have generally become small-scale affairs that are often carried out by an individual laboratory. Although annotating a eukaryotic genome assembly is now within the reach of non-experts, it remains a challenging task. Here we provide an overview of the genome annotation process and the available tools and describe some best-practice approaches.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrg3174

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Gene identification is commonly performed with a mix of three types of evidence: ab initio gene prediction, homology-based inference, and transcriptomic data.

    “Gene identification is commonly performed with a mix of three types of evidence: ab initio gene prediction, homology-based inference, and transcriptomic data (Yandell and Ence 2012).”

    From Annotation matters: the effect of structural gene annotation on orthology inference (2025) · cites this paper as Yandell and Ence 2012

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 128

  1. Adams, M. D. et al. The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 287, 2185–2195 (2000). · DOI
  2. Celniker, S. E. et al. Finishing a whole-genome shotgun: release 3 of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome sequence. Genome Biol. 3, research0079 (2002). · DOI
  3. Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature 431, 931–945 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Denoeud, F. et al. Annotating genomes with massive-scale RNA sequencing. Genome Biol. 9, R175 (2008). · DOI
  5. Ozsolak, F. et al. Direct RNA sequencing. Nature 461, 814–818 (2009). · DOI
  6. Wang, E. T. et al. Alternative isoform regulation in human tissue transcriptomes. Nature 456, 470–476 (2008). This paper provides one of the most extensively documented surveys of alternatively spliced transcripts. It is a key publication for understanding how extensive alternative splicing is in human tissues, for understanding how powerful RNA-seq data are as a tool for discovering new transcripts and for quantifying their abundance and differential expression patterns. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chain, P. S. et al. Genomics. Genome project standards in a new era of sequencing. Science 326, 236–237 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Cantarel, B. L. et al. MAKER: an easy-to-use annotation pipeline designed for emerging model organism genomes. Genome Res. 18, 188–196 (2008). · DOI
  9. Ye, L. et al. A vertebrate case study of the quality of assemblies derived from next-generation sequences. Genome Biol. 12, R31 (2011). · DOI
  10. Parra, G., Bradnam, K. & Korf, I. CEGMA: a pipeline to accurately annotate core genes in eukaryotic genomes. Bioinformatics 23, 1061–1067 (2007). · DOI
  11. Tsai, I. J., Otto, T. D. & Berriman, M. Improving draft assemblies by iterative mapping and assembly of short reads to eliminate gaps. Genome Biol. 11, R41 (2010). · DOI
  12. Assefa, S., Keane, T. M., Otto, T. D., Newbold, C. & Berriman, M. ABACAS: algorithm-based automatic contiguation of assembled sequences. Bioinformatics 25, 1968–1969 (2009). · DOI
  13. Husemann, P. & Stoye, J. r2cat: synteny plots and comparative assembly. Bioinformatics 26, 570–571 (2010). · DOI
  14. Kapitonov, V. V. & Jurka, J. A novel class of SINE elements derived from 5S rRNA. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20, 694–702 (2003). · DOI
  15. Kapitonov, V. V. & Jurka, J. A universal classification of eukaryotic transposable elements implemented in Repbase. Nature Rev. Genet. 9, 411–412; author reply 414 (2008). · DOI
  16. Lander, E. S. et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Buisine, N., Quesneville, H. & Colot, V. Improved detection and annotation of transposable elements in sequenced genomes using multiple reference sequence sets. Genomics 91, 467–475 (2008). · DOI
  18. Han, Y. & Wessler, S. R. MITE-Hunter: a program for discovering miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements from genomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e199 (2010). · DOI
  19. McClure, M. A. et al. Automated characterization of potentially active retroid agents in the human genome. Genomics 85, 512–523 (2005). · DOI
  20. Bao, Z. & Eddy, S. R. Automated de novo identification of repeat sequence families in sequenced genomes. Genome Res. 12, 1269–1276 (2002). · DOI
  21. Price, A. L., Jones, N. C. & Pevzner, P. A. De novo identification of repeat families in large genomes. Bioinformatics 21 (Suppl. 1), i351–i358 (2005). · DOI
  22. Smit, A. & Hubley, R. RepeatModeler 1.05. repeatmasker.org [online] , (2011).
  23. Morgulis, A., Gertz, E. M., Schaffer, A. A. & Agarwala, R. WindowMasker: window-based masker for sequenced genomes. Bioinformatics 22, 134–141 (2006). · DOI
  24. Treangen, T. J. & Salzberg, S. L. Repetitive DNA and next-generation sequencing: computational challenges and solutions. Nature Rev. Genet. 13, 36–46 (2012). · DOI
  25. Bergman, C. M. & Quesneville, H. Discovering and detecting transposable elements in genome sequences. Brief. Bioinform. 8, 382–392 (2007). · DOI
  26. Cordaux, R. & Batzer, M. A. The impact of retrotransposons on human genome evolution. Nature Rev. Genet. 10, 691–703 (2009). · DOI
  27. Witherspoon, D. J. et al. Alu repeats increase local recombination rates. BMC Genomics 10, 530 (2009). · DOI
  28. Korf, I., Yandell, M. & Bedell, J. BLAST: an Essential Guide to the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool 339 (O'Reilly & Associates, 2003). Everyone involved with a genome project should be familiar with BLAST. Reference 31 is the original paper describing this tool. Reference 32 is an entire book describing BLAST and how it is used.
  29. Majoros, W. H. Methods for Computational Gene Prediction 2 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007). · DOI
  30. Bairoch, A., Boeckmann, B., Ferro, S. & Gasteiger, E. Swiss-Prot: juggling between evolution and stability. Brief. Bioinform. 5, 39–55 (2004). · DOI
  31. Boeckmann, B. et al. Protein variety and functional diversity: Swiss-Prot annotation in its biological context. C.R. Biol. 328, 882–899 (2005). · DOI
  32. The UniProt Consortium. Ongoing and future developments at the Universal Protein Resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D214–D219 (2011). · DOI
  33. Benson, D. A., Karsch-Mizrachi, I., Lipman, D. J., Ostell, J. & Sayers, E. W. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D26–D31 (2009). · DOI
  34. Sayers, E. W. et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D5–D15 (2009). · DOI
  35. Slater, G. S. & Birney, E. Automated generation of heuristics for biological sequence comparison. BMC Bioinformatics 6, 31 (2005). · DOI
  36. Kapustin, Y., Souvorov, A., Tatusova, T. & Lipman, D. Splign: algorithms for computing spliced alignments with identification of paralogs. Biol. Direct 3, 20 (2008). · DOI
  37. Wheelan, S. J., Church, D. M. & Ostell, J. M. Spidey: a tool for mRNA-to-genomic alignments. Genome Res. 11, 1952–1957 (2001). · DOI
  38. Florea, L., Hartzell, G., Zhang, Z., Rubin, G. M. & Miller, W. A computer program for aligning a cDNA sequence with a genomic DNA sequence. Genome Res. 8, 967–974 (1998). · DOI
  39. Garber, M., Grabherr, M. G., Guttman, M. & Trapnell, C. Computational methods for transcriptome annotation and quantification using RNA-seq. Nature Methods 8, 469–477 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Simpson, J. T. et al. ABySS: a parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Res. 19, 1117–1123 (2009). · DOI
  41. Grabherr, M. G. et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-seq data without a reference genome. Nature Biotech. 29, 644–652 (2011). This paper describes Trinity, a transcriptome assembler that was specifically designed for next-generation sequence data. It is required reading for anyone trying to use RNA-seq data for genome annotation. · DOI
  42. Trapnell, C., Pachter, L. & Salzberg, S. L. TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-seq. Bioinformatics 25, 1105–1111 (2009). · DOI
  43. Wu, T. D. & Nacu, S. Fast and SNP-tolerant detection of complex variants and splicing in short reads. Bioinformatics 26, 873–881 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  44. Trapnell, C. et al. Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks. Nature Protoc. 7, 562–578 (2012). This paper describes best practice approaches for combining TopHat and Cufflinks when using RNA-seq data for genome annotation. · DOI
  45. Haas, B. J. et al. Improving the Arabidopsis genome annotation using maximal transcript alignment assemblies. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 5654–5666 (2003). · DOI
  46. Guigo, R., Knudsen, S., Drake, N. & Smith, T. Prediction of gene structure. J. Mol. Biol. 226, 141–157 (1992). · DOI
  47. Solovyev, V. V., Salamov, A. A. & Lawrence, C. B. The prediction of human exons by oligonucleotide composition and discriminant analysis of spliceable open reading frames. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Mol. Biol. 2, 354–362 (1994).
  48. Burge, C. & Karlin, S. Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA. J. Mol. Biol. 268, 78–94 (1997). This study describes the ab initio gene predictor GenScan. It is a classic paper that is full of informative explanations of the problems associated with eukaryotic gene prediction. · DOI
  49. Reese, M. G., Kulp, D., Tammana, H. & Haussler, D. Genie—gene finding in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Res. 10, 529–538 (2000). · DOI
  50. Brent, M. R. Genome annotation past, present, and future: how to define an ORF at each locus. Genome Res. 15, 1777–1786 (2005). · DOI
  51. Korf, I. Gene finding in novel genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 5, 59 (2004). This paper describes a gene predictor, SNAP, that is easy to use and to configure. It also clearly explains the pitfalls that are associated with using a poorly trained gene finder or one that has been trained on a different genome from the one that is being annotated. · DOI
  52. Reese, M. G. & Guigo, R. EGASP: Introduction. Genome Biol. 7 (Suppl. 1), 1–3 (2006). This is the introduction to an entire issue of Genome Biology that is dedicated to benchmarking an entire host of eukaryotic gene finders and annotation pipelines. Anyone involved with a genome annotation project should have a look at every paper in this special supplement. · DOI
  53. Coghlan, A. et al. nGASP—the nematode genome annotation assessment project. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 549 (2008). · DOI
  54. Guigo, R. & Reese, M. G. EGASP: collaboration through competition to find human genes. Nature Methods 2, 575–577 (2005). · DOI
  55. Stanke, M. & Waack, S. Gene prediction with a hidden Markov model and a new intron submodel. Bioinformatics 19 (Suppl. 2), ii215–ii225 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  56. Stanke, M., Schoffmann, O., Morgenstern, B. & Waack, S. Gene prediction in eukaryotes with a generalized hidden Markov model that uses hints from external sources. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 62 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  57. Lukashin, A. V. & Borodovsky, M. GeneMark.hmm: new solutions for gene finding. Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 1107–1115 (1998). · DOI
  58. Ter-Hovhannisyan, V., Lomsadze, A., Chernoff, Y. O. & Borodovsky, M. Gene prediction in novel fungal genomes using an ab initio algorithm with unsupervised training. Genome Res. 18, 1979–1990 (2008). · DOI
  59. Zhu, W., Lomsadze, A. & Borodovsky, M. Ab initio gene identification in metagenomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e132 (2010). · DOI
  60. Korf, I., Flicek, P., Duan, D. & Brent, M. R. Integrating genomic homology into gene structure prediction. Bioinformatics 17, S140–S148 (2001). · DOI
  61. Salamov, A. A. & Solovyev, V. V. Ab initio gene finding in Drosophila genomic DNA. Genome Res. 10, 516–522 (2000). · DOI
  62. Souvorov, A. et al. Gnomon — the NCBI eukaryotic gene prediction tool. National Center for Biotechnology Information [online] , (2010).
  63. Howe, K. L., Chothia, T. & Durbin, R. GAZE: a generic framework for the integration of gene-prediction data by dynamic programming. Genome Res. 12, 1418–1427 (2002). · DOI
  64. Mungall, C. J. et al. An integrated computational pipeline and database to support whole-genome sequence annotation. Genome Biol. 3, research0081 (2002). · DOI
  65. Misra, S. et al. Annotation of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome: a systematic review. Genome Biol. 3, research0083 (2002). · DOI
  66. Yandell, M. et al. A computational and experimental approach to validating annotations and gene predictions in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 1566–1571 (2005). · DOI
  67. Allen, J. E. & Salzberg, S. L. JIGSAW: integration of multiple sources of evidence for gene prediction. Bioinformatics 21, 3596–3603 (2005). · DOI
  68. Haas, B. J. et al. Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using EVidenceModeler and the Program to Assemble Spliced Alignments. Genome Biol. 9, R7 (2008). · DOI
  69. Elsik, C. G. et al. Creating a honey bee consensus gene set. Genome Biol. 8, R13 (2007). · DOI
  70. Liu, Q., Mackey, A. J., Roos, D. S. & Pereira, F. C. Evigan: a hidden variable model for integrating gene evidence for eukaryotic gene prediction. Bioinformatics 24, 597–605 (2008). · DOI
  71. Haas, B. J., Zeng, Q., Pearson, M. D., Cuomo, C. A. & Wortman, J. R. Approaches to fungal genome annotation. Mycology 2, 118–141 (2011). This paper provides an excellent description of the process used by the Broad Institute for fungal annotation. It is also a good resource for those seeking to learn more about PASA; for more information about PASA, see reference 56. · DOI
  72. Holt, C. & Yandell, M. MAKER2: an annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 491 (2011). This study describes the database management and annotation quality-control tools for the MAKER2 genome annotation pipeline. It also explains many of the challenges that are associated with annotating novel genomes and how to overcome them. · DOI · Paper page
  73. Pearson, W. R. & Lipman, D. J. Improved tools for biological sequence comparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 85, 2444–2448 (1988). · DOI · Paper page
  74. Eilbeck, K. et al. The Sequence Ontology: a tool for the unification of genome annotations. Genome Biol. 6, R44 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  75. Donlin, M. J. in Current Protocols in Bioinformatics. Ch. 9, Unit 9.9 (2007).
  76. Skinner, M. E., Uzilov, A. V., Stein, L. D., Mungall, C. J. & Holmes, I. H. JBrowse: a next-generation genome browser. Genome Res. 19, 1630–1638 (2009). · DOI
  77. Stajich, J. E. et al. The Bioperl toolkit: Perl modules for the life sciences. Genome Res. 12, 1611–1618 (2002). · DOI
  78. Zhou, P., Emmert, D. & Zhang, P. in Current Protocols in Bioinformatics Ch. 9, Unit 9.6 (2006).
  79. Klimke, W. et al. Solving the problem: genome annotation standards before the data deluge. Stand. Genomic Sci. 5, 168–193 (2011). · DOI
  80. Brister, J. R. et al. Towards viral genome annotation standards, report from the 2010 NCBI annotation workshop. Viruses 2, 2258–2268 (2010). · DOI
  81. Madupu, R. et al. Meeting report: a workshop on best practices in genome annotation. Database 2010, baq001 (2010). · DOI
  82. Mulder, N. & Apweiler, R. InterPro and InterProScan: tools for protein sequence classification and comparison. Methods Mol. Biol. 396, 59–70 (2007). · DOI
  83. Holt, C. Tools and Techniques for Genome Annotation Analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Utah (2011).
  84. Eilbeck, K., Moore, B., Holt, C. & Yandell, M. Quantitative measures for the management and comparison of annotated genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 67 (2009). This paper describes a number of annotation quality-control measures, including annotation edit distance (AED). It also provides some interesting meta-analyses describing the impact of curation efforts on the gene annotations of several model organism databases over a period of several years. · DOI
  85. Lewis, S. E. et al. Apollo: a sequence annotation editor. Genome Biol. 3, research0082 (2002). · DOI
  86. Engels, R. Argo Genome Browser version 1.0.31. Broad Institute [online] , (2010).
  87. Rutherford, K. et al. Artemis: sequence visualization and annotation. Bioinformatics 16, 944–945 (2000). · DOI
  88. Hartl, D. L. Fly meets shotgun: shotgun wins. Nature Genet. 24, 327–328 (2000). · DOI
  89. Desk, B. H. Introduction to the standalone WWW Blast server. National Center for Biotechnology Information [online] , (2002). This page explains how to use a suite of programs to set up a local Blast server for your local database.
  90. Stein, L. D. et al. The generic genome browser: a building block for a model organism system database. Genome Res. 12, 1599–1610 (2002). · DOI
  91. Munoz-Torres, M. C. et al. Hymenoptera Genome Database: integrated community resources for insect species of the order Hymenoptera. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D658–D662 (2011). · DOI
  92. Smith, C. D. et al. Draft genome of the globally widespread and invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5673–5678 (2011). · DOI
  93. Suen, G. et al. The genome sequence of the leaf-cutter ant Atta cephalotes reveals insights into its obligate symbiotic lifestyle. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002007 (2011). · DOI
  94. Nygaard, S. et al. The genome of the leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex echinatior suggests key adaptations to advanced social life and fungus farming. Genome Res. 21, 1339–1348 (2011). · DOI
  95. Youens-Clark, K. et al. Gramene database in 2010: updates and extensions. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D1085–D1094 (2011). · DOI
  96. Duvick, J. et al. PlantGDB: a resource for comparative plant genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D959–D965 (2008). · DOI
  97. Goodstein, D. M. et al. Phytozome: a comparative platform for green plant genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D1178–D1186 (2012). · DOI
  98. Lawson, D. et al. VectorBase: a data resource for invertebrate vector genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D583–D587 (2009). · DOI
  99. Karro, J. E. et al. Pseudogene.org: a comprehensive database and comparison platform for pseudogene annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D55–D60 (2007). · DOI
  100. Zheng, D. et al. Integrated pseudogene annotation for human chromosome 22: evidence for transcription. J. Mol. Biol. 349, 27–45 (2005). · DOI
  101. Griffiths-Jones, S., Bateman, A., Marshall, M., Khanna, A. & Eddy, S. R. Rfam: an RNA family database. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 439–441 (2003). · DOI
  102. Lagesen, K. et al. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, 3100–3108 (2007). · DOI
  103. Dolezel, J. & Bartos, J. Plant DNA flow cytometry and estimation of nuclear genome size. Ann. Botany 95, 99–110 (2005). · DOI
  104. Laird, C. D. & McCarthy, B. J. Molecular characterization of the Drosophila genome. Genetics 63, 865–882 (1969). · DOI
  105. Lowe, T. M. & Eddy, S. R. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 955–964 (1997). · DOI
  106. Schattner, P., Brooks, A. N. & Lowe, T. M. The tRNAscan-SE, snoscan and snoGPS web servers for the detection of tRNAs and snoRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, W686–W689 (2005). · DOI
  107. Lewis, B. P., Shih, I. H., Jones-Rhoades, M. W., Bartel, D. P. & Burge, C. B. Prediction of mammalian microRNA targets. Cell 115, 787–798 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  108. Eddy, S. R. A memory-efficient dynamic programming algorithm for optimal alignment of a sequence to an RNA secondary structure. BMC Bioinformatics 3, 18 (2002). · DOI
  109. Holmes, I. & Rubin, G. M. Pairwise RNA structure comparison with stochastic context-free grammars. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 7, 163–174 (2002).
  110. Chen, C. et al. Real-time quantification of microRNAs by stem–loop RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, e179 (2005). · DOI
  111. van Leeuwen, S. & Mikkers, H. Long non-coding RNAs: guardians of development. Differentiation 80, 175–183 (2010). · DOI
  112. Hung., T. & Chang, H. Y. Long noncoding RNA in genome regulation: prospects and mechanisms. RNA Biol. 7, 582–585 (2010). · DOI
  113. Tam, O. H. et al. Pseudogene-derived small interfering RNAs regulate gene expression in mouse oocytes. Nature 453, 534–538 (2008). · DOI
  114. Zhang, Z., Carriero, N. & Gerstein, M. Comparative analysis of processed pseudogenes in the mouse and human genomes. Trends Genet. 20, 62–67 (2004). · DOI
  115. Nawrocki, E. P., Kolbe, D. L. & Eddy, S. R. Infernal 1.0: inference of RNA alignments. Bioinformatics 25, 1335–1337 (2009). · DOI
  116. Burset, M. & Guigo, R. Evaluation of gene structure prediction programs. Genomics 34, 353–367 (1996). This paper provides an excellent explanation of how sensitivity and specificity measures can be used to evaluate gene finder performance. This is a classic paper in the field and should be read by anyone involved in gene annotation. · DOI
  117. Baldi, P., Brunak, S., Chauvin, Y., Andersen, C. A. & Nielsen, H. Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: an overview. Bioinformatics 16, 412–424 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  118. Guigo, R. et al. EGASP: the human ENCODE Genome Annotation Assessment Project. Genome Biol. 7 (Suppl. 1), 1–31 (2006).
  119. Schweikert, G. et al. mGene: accurate SVM-based gene finding with an application to nematode genomes. Genome Res. 19, 2133–2143 (2009). · DOI
  120. Parra, G., Blanco, E. & Guigo, R. GeneID in Drosophila. Genome Res. 10, 511–515 (2000). · DOI
  121. Yeh, R. F., Lim, L. P. & Burge, C. B. Computational inference of homologous gene structures in the human genome. Genome Res. 11, 803–816 (2001). · DOI
  122. DeCaprio, D. et al. Conrad: gene prediction using conditional random fields. Genome Res. 17, 1389–1398 (2007). · DOI
  123. Gross, S. S., Do, C. B., Sirota, M. & Batzoglou, S. CONTRAST: a discriminative, phylogeny-free approach to multiple informant de novo gene prediction. Genome Biol. 8, R269 (2007). · DOI
  124. Bernal, A., Crammer, K., Hatzigeorgiou, A. & Pereira, F. Global discriminative learning for higher-accuracy computational gene prediction. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e54 (2007). · DOI
  125. Usuka, J., Zhu, W. & Brendel, V. Optimal spliced alignment of homologous cDNA to a genomic DNA template. Bioinformatics 16, 203–211 (2000). · DOI
  126. Kiryutin, B. ProSplign. National Center for Biotechnology Information [online] , (2011).
  127. Kitts, P. in The NCBI Handbook (ed. McEntyre, J. & Ostell, J.) (National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2003).
  128. Robinson, J. T. et al. Integrative genomics viewer. Nature Biotech. 29, 24–26 (2011). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yandell, M., & Ence, D.
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-04-18
Volume
13
Issue
5
Pages
329-342
ISSN
  • 1471-0056
  • 1471-0064
DOI
10.1038/nrg3174
Cited by
588
References
12
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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