Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17954978›Full record

ArticleJournal of biosciences2007

In silico comparison of bacterial strains using mutual information.

D Swati

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biosciences, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

D SwatiDepartment of Physics, MMV, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India. swati@bhu.ac.in
Banaras Hindu University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fast-sequencing throughput methods have increased the number of completely sequenced bacterial genomes to about 400 by December 2006, with the number increasing rapidly. These include several strains. In silico methods of comparative genomics are of use in categorizing and phylogenetically sorting these bacteria. Various word-based tools have been used for quantifying the similarities and differences between entire genomes. The simple di-nucleotide frequency comparison, codon specificity and k-mer repeat detection are among some of the well-known methods. In this paper, we show that the Mutual Information function, which is a measure of correlations and a concept from Information Theory, is very effective in determining the similarities and differences among genome sequences of various strains of bacteria such as the plant pathogen Xylella fastidiosa, marine Cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus marinus or animal and human pathogens such as species of Ehrlichia and Legionella. The short-range three-base periodicity, small sequence repeats and long-range correlations taken together constitute a genome signature that can be used as a technique for identifying new bacterial strains with the help of strains already catalogued in the database. There have been several applications of using the Mutual Information function as a measure of correlations in genomics but this is the first whole genome analysis done to detect strain similarities and differences.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyBase CompositionBase SequenceChromosomes, BacterialDatabases, GeneticDNA, BacterialEnterobacteriaceaeGenome, BacterialGenomicsGram-Negative Aerobic Rods and CocciGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive CocciGram-Positive Endospore-Forming RodsRandom AllocationReading FramesSequence Homology, Nucleic AcidDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID17954978
OpenAlexW2011097235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.