1. |
- Wortman, J. R., et al.
(author)
-
The 2008 update of the Aspergillus nidulans genome annotation: A community effort
- 2009
-
In: Fungal Genetics and Biology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1096-0937 .- 1087-1845. ; 46, s. S2-S13
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The identification and annotation of protein-coding genes is one of the primary goals of whole-genome sequencing projects, and the accuracy of predicting the primary protein products of gene expression is vital to the interpretation of the available data and the design of downstream functional applications. Nevertheless, the comprehensive annotation of eukaryotic genomes remains a considerable challenge. Many genomes submitted to public databases, including those of major model organisms, contain significant numbers of wrong and incomplete gene predictions. We present a community-based reannotation of the Aspergillus nidulans genome with the primary goal of increasing the number and quality of protein functional assignments through the careful review of experts in the field of fungal biology. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
3. |
- Andrade, S. C. S., et al.
(author)
-
Disentangling ribbon worm relationships: multi-locus analysis supports traditional classification of the phylum Nemertea
- 2012
-
In: Cladistics. - : Wiley. - 0748-3007. ; 28:2, s. 141-159
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The phylogenetic relationships of selected members of the phylum Nemertea are explored by means of six markers amplified from the genomic DNA of freshly collected specimens (the nuclear 18S rRNA and 28S rRNA genes, histones H3 and H4, and the mitochondrial genes 16S rRNA and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I). These include all previous markers and regions used in earlier phylogenetic analyses of nemerteans, therefore acting as a scaffold to which one could pinpoint any previously published study. Our results, based on analyses of static and dynamic homology concepts under probabilistic and parsimony frameworks, agree in the non-monophyly of Palaeonemertea and in the monophyly of Heteronemerta and Hoplonemertea. The position of Hubrechtella and the Pilidiophora hypothesis are, however, sensitive to analytical method, as is the monophyly of the non-hubrechtiid palaeonemerteans. Our results are, however, consistent with the main division of Hoplonemertea into Polystilifera and Monostilifera, the last named being divided into Cratenemertea and Distromatonemertea, as well as into the main division of Heteronemertea into Baseodiscus and the remaining species. The study also continues to highlight the deficient taxonomy at the family and generic level within Nemertea and sheds light on the areas of the tree that require further refinement.
|
|