Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,434

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Benchmarking transposable element annotation methods for creation of a streamlined, comprehensive pipeline

Open access
Ou, Shujun, Su, Weija, Liao, Yi, Chougule, Kapeel, Agda, Jireh R. A., Hellinga, Adam J., Lugo, Carlos Santiago Blanco, Elliott, Tyler A., Ware, Doreen, Peterson, Thomas, Jiang, Ning, Hirsch, Candice N., Hufford, Matthew B.·2019·Genome Biology

Abstract

Background: Sequencing technology and assembly algorithms have matured to the point that high-quality de novo assembly is possible for large, repetitive genomes. Current assemblies traverse transposable elements (TEs) and provide an opportunity for comprehensive annotation of TEs. Numerous methods exist for annotation of each class of TEs, but their relative performances have not been systematically compared. Moreover, a comprehensive pipeline is needed to produce a non-redundant library of TEs for species lacking this resource to generate whole-genome TE annotations. Results: We benchmark existing programs based on a carefully curated library of rice TEs. We evaluate the performance of methods annotating long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons, terminal inverted repeat (TIR) transposons, short TIR transposons known as miniature inverted transposable elements (MITEs), and Helitrons. Performance metrics include sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, FDR, and F 1 . Using the most robust programs, we create a comprehensive pipeline called Extensive de-novo TE Annotator (EDTA) that produces a filtered non-redundant TE library for annotation of structurally intact and fragmented elements. EDTA also deconvolutes nested TE insertions frequently found in highly repetitive genomic regions. Using other model species with curated TE libraries (maize and Drosophila), EDTA is shown to be robust across both plant and animal species. Conclusions: The benchmarking results and pipeline developed here will greatly facilitate TE annotation in eukaryotic genomes. These annotations will promote a much more in-depth understanding of the diversity and evolution of TEs at both intra- and inter-species levels. EDTA is open-source and freely available: https://github.com/oushujun/EDTA .

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/s13059-019-1905-y

Cites

64 of 64 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

Cites

Show all 64 references

Cited by

See all 1,434

Metadata

Authors
Ou, S., Su, W., Liao, Y., Chougule, K., Agda, J. R. A., Hellinga, A. J., Lugo, C. S. B., Elliott, T. A., Ware, D., Peterson, T., Jiang, N., Hirsch, C. N., & Hufford, M. B.
Venue
Genome Biology
Published
2019-12-16
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
275-275
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
OpenAlex
W2994632914
Cited by
1,434
References
64
FWCI
45.83
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: Benchmarking transposable element annotation methods for creation of a streamlined, comprehensive pipeline. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13059-019-1905-y
The paper
Ou, S., Su, W., Liao, Y., Chougule, K., Agda, J. R. A., Hellinga, A. J., Lugo, C. S. B., Elliott, T. A., Ware, D., Peterson, T., Jiang, N., Hirsch, C. N., & Hufford, M. B. (2019). Benchmarking transposable element annotation methods for creation of a streamlined, comprehensive pipeline. Genome Biology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1905-y

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.