ArticleRNA (New York, N.Y.)2025
Evaluating computational tools for protein-coding sequence detection: Are they up to the task?
Article in RNA (New York, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detecting protein-coding genes in nucleotide sequences is a significant challenge for understanding genome and transcriptome function, yet the reliability of bioinformatic tools for this task remains largely unverified. This is despite some tools being available for several decades and widely used for genome and transcriptome annotation. We perform an assessment of nucleotide sequence and alignment-based de novo protein-coding detection tools. The controls we use exclude any previous training data set and include coding exons as a positive set and length-matched intergenic and shuffled sequences as negative sets. Our work demonstrates that several widely used tools are neither accurate nor computationally efficient for the protein-coding sequence detection problem. In fact, just three of nine tools significantly outperformed a naive scoring scheme. Furthermore, we note a high discrepancy between self-reported accuracies and the accuracy achieved in our study. Our results show that the extra dimension from conserved and variable nucleotides in alignments has a significant advantage over single-sequence approaches. These results highlight significant limitations in existing protein-coding annotation tools that are widely used for lncRNA annotation. This shows a need for more robust and efficient approaches to training and assessing the performance of tools for identifying protein-coding sequences. Our study paves the way for future advancements in comparative genomic approaches, and we hope will popularize more robust approaches to genome and transcriptome annotation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.