Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15757509›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2005

Gene fusions and gene duplications: relevance to genomic annotation and functional analysis.

Margrethe H Serres, Monica Riley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Margrethe H SerresBay Paul Center for Comparative Molecular Biology and Evolution, Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1015, USA. mserres@mbl.edu
Monica Riley
Marine Biological Laboratory · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEscherichia coli a model organism provides information for annotation of other genomes. Our analysis of its genome has shown that proteins encoded by fused genes need special attention. Such composite (multimodular) proteins consist of two or more components (modules) encoding distinct functions. Multimodular proteins have been found to complicate both annotation and generation of sequence similar groups. Previous work overstated the number of multimodular proteins in E. coli. This work corrects the identification of modules by including sequence information from proteins in 50 sequenced microbial genomes.

resultsMultimodular E. coli K-12 proteins were identified from sequence similarities between their component modules and non-fused proteins in 50 genomes and from the literature. We found 109 multimodular proteins in E. coli containing either two or three modules. Most modules had standalone sequence relatives in other genomes. The separated modules together with all the single (un-fused) proteins constitute the sum of all unimodular proteins of E. coli. Pairwise sequence relationships among all E. coli unimodular proteins generated 490 sequence similar, paralogous groups. Groups ranged in size from 92 to 2 members and had varying degrees of relatedness among their members. Some E. coli enzyme groups were compared to homologs in other bacterial genomes.

conclusionThe deleterious effects of multimodular proteins on annotation and on the formation of groups of paralogs are emphasized. To improve annotation results, all multimodular proteins in an organism should be detected and when known each function should be connected with its location in the sequence of the protein. When transferring functions by sequence similarity, alignment locations must be noted, particularly when alignments cover only part of the sequences, in order to enable transfer of the correct function. Separating multimodular proteins into module units makes it possible to generate protein groups related by both sequence and function, avoiding mixing of unrelated sequences. Organisms differ in sizes of groups of sequence-related proteins. A sample comparison of orthologs to selected E. coli paralogous groups correlates with known physiological and taxonomic relationships between the organisms.

Indexed as

Gene DuplicationComputational BiologyEscherichia coliEscherichia coli ProteinsGenomeGenome, BacterialGenomicsLigandsModels, GeneticProtein Structure, TertiarySequence Analysis, DNASpecies SpecificityEscherichia coli ProteinsLigands

Identifiers

PMID15757509
PMCPMC555942
OpenAlexW1501260206

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.