Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19204819›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary bioinformatics online2008

Testing the accuracy of eukaryotic phylogenetic profiles for prediction of biological function.

Saurav Singh, Dennis P Wall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary bioinformatics online, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Saurav SinghCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Dennis P Wall

Funding

Building a framework for exploration of orthologs and evolutionary distances.R03LM009261 · NLM · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI WALL, DENNIS PAUL · 2007 to 2009
$211k
NLM NIH HHS R03 LM009261
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A phylogenetic profile captures the pattern of gene gain and loss throughout evolutionary time. Proteins that interact directly or indirectly within the cell to perform a biological function will often co-evolve, and this co-evolution should be well reflected within their phylogenetic profiles. Thus similar phylogenetic profiles are commonly used for grouping proteins into functional groups. However, it remains unclear how the size and content of the phylogenetic profile impacts the ability to predict function, particularly in Eukaryotes. Here we developed a straightforward approach to address this question by constructing a complete set of phylogenetic profiles for 31 fully sequenced Eukaryotes. Using Gene Ontology as our gold standard, we compared the accuracy of functional predictions made by a comprehensive array of permutations on the complete set of genomes. Our permutations showed that phylogenetic profiles containing between 25 and 31 Eukaryotic genomes performed equally well and significantly better than all other permuted genome sets, with one exception: we uncovered a core of group of 18 genomes that achieved statistically identical accuracy. This core group contained genomes from each branch of the eukaryotic phylogeny, but also contained several groups of closely related organisms, suggesting that a balance between phylogenetic breadth and depth may improve our ability to use Eukaryotic specific phylogenetic profiles for functional annotations.

Indexed as

comparative genomicsfunctional predictionphylogenetic profiles

Identifiers

PMID19204819
PMCPMC2614202

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.