The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empirical comparison of ab initio repeat finding programs
Open accessAbstract
Identification of dispersed repetitive elements can be difficult, especially when elements share little or no homology with previously described repeats. Consequently, a growing number of computational tools have been designed to identify repetitive elements in an ab initio manner, i.e. without using prior sequence data. Here we present the results of side-by-side evaluations of six of the most widely used ab initio repeat finding programs. Using sequence from rice chromosome 12, tools were compared with regard to time requirements, ability to find known repeats, utility in identifying potential novel repeats, number and types of repeat elements recognized and compactness of family descriptions. The study reveals profound differences in the utility of the tools with some identifying virtually their entire substrate as repetitive, others making reasonable estimates of repetition, and some missing almost all repeats. Of note, even when tools recognized similar numbers of repeats they often showed marked differences in the nature and number of repeat families identified. Within the context of this comparative study, ReAS and RepeatScout showed the most promise in analysis of sequence reads and assembled genomic regions, respectively. Our results should help biologists identify the program(s), if any, that is best suited for their needs.
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
Multiple sequence alignment with the Clustal series of programs
Chenna, R. (2003) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkg500 · Cited by 4,875
Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (2007) · W.W. Norton eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203833445 · Cited by 4,589
The map-based sequence of the rice genome
International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, & Sasaki, T. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03895 · Cited by 3,797
Repbase Update, a database of eukaryotic repetitive elements
Jurka, J., Kapitonov, V. V., Pavlicek, A., Klonowski, P., Kohany, O., & Walichiewicz, J. (2005) · Cytogenetic and Genome Research · doi:10.1159/000084979 · Cited by 3,370
A unified classification system for eukaryotic transposable elements
Wicker, T., Sabot, F., Hua-Van, A., Bennetzen, J. L., Capy, P., Chalhoub, B., Flavell, A., Leroy, P., Morgante, M., Panaud, O., et al. (2007) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2165 · Cited by 3,054
Britten, R. J., & Kohne, D. E. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.161.3841.529 · Cited by 2,802
De novo identification of repeat families in large genomes
Price, A. L., Jones, N. C., & Pevzner, P. A. (2005) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti1018 · Cited by 2,152
Role of transposable elements in heterochromatin and epigenetic control
Lippman, Z., Gendrel, A.-V., Black, M., Vaughn, M. W., Dedhia, N., Richard McCombie, W., Lavine, K., Mittal, V., May, B., Kasschau, K. D., et al. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02651 · Cited by 1,065
Automated De Novo Identification of Repeat Sequence Families in Sequenced Genomes
Bao, Z., & Eddy, S. R. (2002) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.88502 · Cited by 983
The Genome Sequence of Caenorhabditis briggsae: A Platform for Comparative Genomics
Stein, L. D., Bao, Z., Blasiar, D., Blumenthal, T., Brent, M. R., Chen, N., Chinwalla, A., Clarke, L., Clee, C., Coghlan, A., et al. (2003) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000045 · Cited by 940
Cited by
RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families
Flynn, J. M., Hubley, R., Goubert, C., Rosen, J., Clark, A. G., Feschotte, C., & Smit, A. F. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1921046117 · Cited by 3,848
Annotating non-coding regions of the genome.
Alexander, R. P., Fang, G., Rozowsky, J., Snyder, M., & Gerstein, M. B. (2010) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2814 · Cited by 464
Transposable element detection from whole genome sequence data
Ewing, A. D. (2015) · Mobile DNA · doi:10.1186/s13100-015-0055-3 · Cited by 155
A call for benchmarking transposable element annotation methods
Hoen, D. R., Hickey, G., Bourque, G., Casacuberta, J., Cordaux, R., Feschotte, C., Fiston-Lavier, A.-S., Hua-Van, A., Hubley, R., Kapusta, A., et al. (2015) · Mobile DNA · doi:10.1186/s13100-015-0044-6 · Cited by 105
Gu, H.-J., Sun, Q.-L., Luo, J.-C., Zhang, J., & Sun, L. (2019) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2019.00183 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Saha, S., Bridges, S., Magbanua, Z. V., & Peterson, D. G.
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-02-16
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2284-2294
- ISSN
- 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-4962
- OpenAlex
- W2047789345
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 9.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Empirical comparison of ab initio repeat finding programs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/nar/gkn064
- The paper
- Saha, S., Bridges, S., Magbanua, Z. V., & Peterson, D. G. (2008). Empirical comparison of ab initio repeat finding programs. Nucleic Acids Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkn064
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.
