P8008 The NCBI Eukaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Integrating gene annotation with orthology inference at scale (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Integrating gene annotation with orthology inference at scale
Kirilenko, B. M., Munegowda, C., Osipova, E., Jebb, D., Sharma, V., Blumer, M., Morales, A. E., Ahmed, A.-W., Kontopoulos, D.-G., Hilgers, L., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abn3107 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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