The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Genome Annotation Assessment in Drosophila melanogaster
Open accessAbstract
Computational methods for automated genome annotation are critical to our community's ability to make full use of the large volume of genomic sequence being generated and released. To explore the accuracy of these automated feature prediction tools in the genomes of higher organisms, we evaluated their performance on a large, well-characterized sequence contig from the Adh region of Drosophila melanogaster. This experiment, known as the Genome Annotation Assessment Project (GASP), was launched in May 1999. Twelve groups, applying state-of-the-art tools, contributed predictions for features including gene structure, protein homologies, promoter sites, and repeat elements. We evaluated these predictions using two standards, one based on previously unreleased high-quality full-length cDNA sequences and a second based on the set of annotations generated as part of an in-depth study of the region by a group of Drosophila experts. Although these standard sets only approximate the unknown distribution of features in this region, we believe that when taken in context the results of an evaluation based on them are meaningful. The results were presented as a tutorial at the conference on Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology (ISMB-99) in August 1999. Over 95% of the coding nucleotides in the region were correctly identified by the majority of the gene finders, and the correct intron/exon structures were predicted for >40% of the genes. Homology-based annotation techniques recognized and associated functions with almost half of the genes in the region; the remainder were only identified by the ab initio techniques. This experiment also presents the first assessment of promoter prediction techniques for a significant number of genes in a large contiguous region. We discovered that the promoter predictors' high false-positive rates make their predictions difficult to use. Integrating gene finding and cDNA/EST alignments with promoter predictions decreases the number of false-positive classifications but discovers less than one-third of the promoters in the region. We believe that by establishing standards for evaluating genomic annotations and by assessing the performance of existing automated genome annotation tools, this experiment establishes a baseline that contributes to the value of ongoing large-scale annotation projects and should guide further research in genome informatics.
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
Improved tools for biological sequence comparison.
Pearson, W. R., & Lipman, D. J. (1988) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.85.8.2444 · Cited by 11,227
Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences
Benson, G. (1999) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/27.2.573 · Cited by 9,374
Cited by
Korf, I. (2004) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-5-59 · Cited by 3,192
Gene prediction with a hidden Markov model and a new intron submodel
Stanke, M., & Waack, S. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg1080 · Cited by 1,439
Assessing computational tools for the discovery of transcription factor binding sites
Tompa, M., Li, N., Bailey, T. L., Church, G. M., De Moor, B., Eskin, E., Favorov, A. V., Frith, M. C., Fu, Y., Kent, W. J., et al. (2005) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1053 · Cited by 1,268
Ab initio Gene Finding in Drosophila Genomic DNA
Salamov, A. A., & Solovyev, V. V. (2000) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.10.4.516 · Cited by 1,120
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Reese, M. G., Hartzell, G., Harris, N. L., Ohler, U., Abril, J. F., & Lewis, S. E.
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2000-04-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 483-501
- ISSN
- 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-5469
- OpenAlex
- W2117858546
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Genome Annotation Assessment in Drosophila melanogaster. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.10.4.483
- The paper
- Reese, M. G., Hartzell, G., Harris, N. L., Ohler, U., Abril, J. F., & Lewis, S. E. (2000). Genome Annotation Assessment in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.10.4.483
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.