Cited by 64Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesChromosomal and Genetic VariationsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

P8008 The NCBI Eukaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline

Thibaud-Nissen, F., DiCuccio, M., Hlavina, W., Kimchi, A., Kitts, P. A., Murphy, T. D., Pruitt, K. D., Souvorov, A.·2016·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Eukaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/annotation_euk/, verified 26 May 2016) has been used to annotate over 280 organisms, including many animals of agricultural importance. The pipeline provides content for various NCBI resources, including Reference Sequence (RefSeq) sequence databases, Gene, BLAST databases, and the Map Viewer genome browser. The pipeline uses a modular framework for the automated execution of all annotation tasks from the fetching of raw and curated data from public repositories to the submission of the RefSeq-accessioned annotation products to public databases. The quality of the annotation is highly dependent on the availability of evidence for the species or closely related species. Alignments of RNA-Seq, traditional transcripts, expressed sequence tags, transcript assemblies, and proteins by Splign and ProSplign all contribute to the prediction of gene models by Gnomon, an alignment- and Hidden Markov Model-based gene prediction program developed at NCBI. The RefSeq group curates genes and transcripts for several plant and animal genomes, including pig, horse, and cattle. When available for the annotated species, the curated transcripts are aligned to the genome and take precedence over similar models produced by Gnomon based on other (noncurated) evidence. High-quality annotation is also achieved by producing models that compensate for assembly issues u…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/jas2016.94supplement4184x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • TOGA annotations have a higher BUSCO completeness score for 97% of Ensembl species and 91.5% of NCBI species, increasing annotation completeness of conserved genes by an average of 4.1% or ~377 genes (Ensembl) and 0.7% or ~64 genes (NCBI).

    “TOGA annotations have a higher completeness score for 97% (Ensembl) and 91.5% (NCBI) of the species (Fig. 3A,B, Tables S6–S7), increasing annotation completeness of conserved genes by an average of 4.1% or ~377 genes (Ensembl) and 0.7% or ~64 genes (NCBI) (fig. S30).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thibaud-Nissen, F., DiCuccio, M., Hlavina, W., Kimchi, A., Kitts, P. A., Murphy, T. D., Pruitt, K. D., & Souvorov, A.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2016-09-01
Volume
94
Issue
suppl_4
Pages
184-184
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W2728408188
Cited by
64
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
eukaryotic genome annotation, reference sequences, gene prediction, gnomon, transcript annotation, re-annotation, animal genomes, pigs, cattle, horses, genome assembly gaps

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