ReviewDie Naturwissenschaften2008
Homology and phylogeny and their automated inference.
Review in Die Naturwissenschaften, 2008. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The analysis of the ever-increasing amount of biological and biomedical data can be pushed forward by comparing the data within and among species. For example, an integrative analysis of data from the genome sequencing projects for various species traces the evolution of the genomes and identifies conserved and innovative parts. Here, I review the foundations and advantages of this "historical" approach and evaluate recent attempts at automating such analyses. Biological data is comparable if a common origin exists (homology), as is the case for members of a gene family originating via duplication of an ancestral gene. If the family has relatives in other species, we can assume that the ancestral gene was present in the ancestral species from which all the other species evolved. In particular, describing the relationships among the duplicated biological sequences found in the various species is often possible by a phylogeny, which is more informative than homology statements. Detecting and elaborating on common origins may answer how certain biological sequences developed, and predict what sequences are in a particular species and what their function is. Such knowledge transfer from sequences in one species to the homologous sequences of the other is based on the principle of 'my closest relative looks and behaves like I do', often referred to as 'guilt by association'. To enable knowledge transfer on a large scale, several automated 'phylogenomics pipelines' have been developed in recent years, and seven of these will be described and compared. Overall, the examples in this review demonstrate that homology and phylogeny analyses, done on a large (and automated) scale, can give insights into function in biology and biomedicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18288471What 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.