The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
JIGSAW: integration of multiple sources of evidence for gene prediction
Open accessAbstract
Motivation: Computational gene finding systems play an important role in finding new human genes, although no systems are yet accurate enough to predict all or even most protein-coding regions perfectly. Ab initio programs can be augmented by evidence such as expression data or protein sequence homology, which improves their performance. The amount of such evidence continues to grow, but computational methods continue to have difficulty predicting genes when the evidence is conflicting or incomplete. Genome annotation pipelines collect a variety of types of evidence about gene structure and synthesize the results, which can then be refined further through manual, expert curation of gene models. Results: JIGSAW is a new gene finding system designed to automate the process of predicting gene structure from multiple sources of evidence, with results that often match the performance of human curators. JIGSAW computes the relative weight of different lines of evidence using statistics generated from a training set, and then combines the evidence using dynamic programming. Our results show that JIGSAW's performance is superior to ab initio gene finding methods and to other pipelines such as Ensembl. Even without evidence from alignment to known genes, JIGSAW can substantially improve gene prediction accuracy as compared with existing methods. Availability: JIGSAW is available as an open source software package at http://cbcb.umd.edu/software/jigsaw Contact: jeallen@umiacs.umd.edu
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
<tt>BLAT</tt> —The <tt>BLAST</tt> -Like Alignment Tool
Kent, W. J. (2002) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.229202 · Cited by 8,480
The Ensembl Automatic Gene Annotation System
Curwen, V., Eyras, E., Andrews, T. D., Clarke, L., Mongin, E., Searle, S. M. J., & Clamp, M. (2004) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.1858004 · Cited by 400
Cited by
A beginner’s guide to eukaryotic genome annotation
Yandell, M., & Ence, D. (2012) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3174 · Cited by 588
Dalloul, R. A., Long, J. A., Zimin, A. V., Aslam, L., Beal, K., Ann Blomberg, L., Bouffard, P., Burt, D. W., Crasta, O., Crooijmans, R. P. M. A., et al. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000475 · Cited by 416
Self-citationTSEBRA: transcript selector for BRAKER
Gabriel, L., Hoff, K. J., Brůna, T., Borodovsky, M., & Stanke, M. (2021) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-021-04482-0 · Cited by 410
A new version of the grapevine reference genome assembly (12X.v2) and of its annotation (VCost.v3)
Canaguier, A., Grimplet, J., Di Gaspero, G., Scalabrin, S., Duchêne, E., Choisne, N., Mohellibi, N., Guichard, C., Rombauts, S., Le Clainche, I., et al. (2017) · Genomics Data · doi:10.1016/j.gdata.2017.09.002 · Cited by 322
Comparative genomics of emerging pathogens in the Candida glabrata clade.
Gabaldón, T., Martin, T., Marcet-Houben, M., Durrens, P., Bolotin-Fukuhara, M., Lespinet, O., Arnaise, S., Boisnard, S., Aguileta, G., Atanasova, R., et al. (2013) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-14-623 · Cited by 198
Metadata
- Authors
- Allen, J. E., & Salzberg, S. L.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-08-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 3596-3603
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2143801061
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: JIGSAW: integration of multiple sources of evidence for gene prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti609
- The paper
- Allen, J. E., & Salzberg, S. L. (2005). JIGSAW: integration of multiple sources of evidence for gene prediction. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti609
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.