Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38373163›Full record

ArticleGenetics and molecular biology2024

The good, the bad and the ugly of transposable elements annotation tools.

Elgion L S Loreto, Elverson S de Melo, Gabriel L Wallau, Tiago M F F Gomes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics and molecular biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Extrachromosomal Circular DNA and Transposable Elements in Type 2 Diabetes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Graphical pangenomics-enabled characterization of structural variant impact on gene expression in Brassica napus.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elgion L S LoretoUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7586-8168
Elverson S de MeloFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Aggeu Magalhães, Departamento de Entomologia, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3012-2503
Gabriel L WallauFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Aggeu Magalhães, Departamento de Entomologia, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1419-5713
Tiago M F F GomesUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1793-143X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transposable elements are repetitive and mobile DNA segments that can be found in virtually all organisms investigated to date. Their complex structure and variable nature are particularly challenging from the genomic annotation point of view. Many softwares have been developed to automate and facilitate TEs annotation at the genomic level, but they are highly heterogeneous regarding documentation, usability and methods. In this review, we revisited the existing software for TE genomic annotation, concentrating on the most often used ones, the methodologies they apply, and usability. Building on the state of the art of TE annotation software we propose best practices and highlight the strengths and weaknesses from the available solutions.

Identifiers

PMID38373163
PMCPMC10876081

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.