Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Drosophilafull-length cDNA resource

Open access
Stapleton, Mark, Carlson, Joe, Brokstein, Peter, Yu, Charles, Champe, Mark, George, Reed, Guarin, Hannibal, Kronmiller, Brent, Pacleb, Joanne, Park, Soo, Wan, Ken, Rubin, Gerald M, Celniker, Susan E·2002·Genome Biology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A collection of sequenced full-length cDNAs is an important resource both for functional genomics studies and for the determination of the intron-exon structure of genes. Providing this resource to the Drosophila melanogaster research community has been a long-term goal of the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project. We have previously described the Drosophila Gene Collection (DGC), a set of putative full-length cDNAs that was produced by generating and analyzing over 250,000 expressed sequence tags (ESTs) derived from a variety of tissues and developmental stages. RESULTS: We have generated high-quality full-insert sequence for 8,921 clones in the DGC. We compared the sequence of these clones to the annotated Release 3 genomic sequence, and identified more than 5,300 cDNAs that contain a complete and accurate protein-coding sequence. This corresponds to at least one splice form for 40% of the predicted D. melanogaster genes. We also identified potential new cases of RNA editing. CONCLUSIONS: We show that comparison of cDNA sequences to a high-quality annotated genomic sequence is an effective approach to identifying and eliminating defective clones from a cDNA collection and ensure its utility for experimentation. Clones were eliminated either because they carry single nucleotide discrepancies, which most probably result from reverse transcriptase errors, or because they are truncated and contain only part of the protein-coding sequence.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0080

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Stapleton, M., Carlson, J., Brokstein, P., Yu, C., Champe, M., George, R., Guarin, H., Kronmiller, B., Pacleb, J., Park, S., Wan, K., Rubin, G. M., & Celniker, S. E.
Venue
Genome Biology
Published
2002-12-23
Volume
3
Issue
12
Pages
RESEARCH0080-RESEARCH0080
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
OpenAlex
W2099681226
Cited by
188
References
1
FWCI
5.40
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: A Drosophilafull-length cDNA resource. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0080
The paper
Stapleton, M., Carlson, J., Brokstein, P., Yu, C., Champe, M., George, R., Guarin, H., Kronmiller, B., Pacleb, J., Park, S., Wan, K., Rubin, G. M., & Celniker, S. E. (2002). A Drosophilafull-length cDNA resource. Genome Biology. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0080

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.