ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006
Gene annotation and network inference by phylogenetic profiling.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional characterization of breast cancer using pathway profiles.BMC medical genomics · 2014Article
- Article
- Article
- An improved hypergeometric probability method for identification of functionally linked proteins using phylogenetic profiles.Bioinformation · 2013Article
- DNA-energetics-based analyses suggest additional genes in prokaryotes.Journal of biosciences · 2012Article
- Computational bacterial genome-wide analysis of phylogenetic profiles reveals potential virulence genes of Streptococcus agalactiae.PloS one · 2011Article
- What we can learn about Escherichia coli through application of Gene Ontology.Trends in microbiology · 2009Review
- In silico prioritisation of candidate genes for prokaryotic gene function discovery: an application of phylogenetic profiles.BMC bioinformatics · 2009Article
- Co-evolutionary networks of genes and cellular processes across fungal species.Genome biology · 2009Article
- Prosecutor: parameter-free inference of gene function for prokaryotes using DNA microarray data, genomic context and multiple gene annotation sources.BMC genomics · 2008Article
- Testing the accuracy of eukaryotic phylogenetic profiles for prediction of biological function.Evolutionary bioinformatics online · 2008Article
- High-precision high-coverage functional inference from integrated data sources.BMC bioinformatics · 2008Article
- Practical and theoretical advances in predicting the function of a protein by its phylogenetic distribution.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2008Review
- The Schistosoma mansoni transcriptome: an update.Experimental parasitology · 2007Review
- Discovering functional linkages and uncharacterized cellular pathways using phylogenetic profile comparisons: a comprehensive assessment.BMC bioinformatics · 2007Article
- Towards zoomable multidimensional maps of the cell.Nature biotechnology · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhylogenetic analysis is emerging as one of the most informative computational methods for the annotation of genes and identification of evolutionary modules of functionally related genes. The effectiveness with which phylogenetic profiles can be utilized to assign genes to pathways depends on an appropriate measure of correlation between gene profiles, and an effective decision rule to use the correlate. Current methods, though useful, perform at a level well below what is possible, largely because performance of the latter deteriorates rapidly as coverage increases.
resultsWe introduce, test and apply a new decision rule, correlation enrichment (CE), for assigning genes to functional categories at various levels of resolution. Among the results are: (1) CE performs better than standard guilt by association (SGA, assignment to a functional category when a simple correlate exceeds a pre-specified threshold) irrespective of the number of genes assigned (i.e. coverage); improvement is greatest at high coverage where precision (positive predictive value) of CE is approximately 6-fold higher than that of SGA. (2) CE is estimated to allocate each of the 2918 unannotated orthologs to KEGG pathways with an average precision of 49% (approximately 7-fold higher than SGA) (3) An estimated 94% of the 1846 unannotated orthologs in the COG ontology can be assigned a function with an average precision of 0.4 or greater. (4) Dozens of functional and evolutionarily conserved cliques or quasi-cliques can be identified, many having previously unannotated genes.
conclusionThe method serves as a general computational tool for annotating large numbers of unknown genes, uncovering evolutionary and functional modules. It appears to perform substantially better than extant stand alone high throughout methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.