ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009
Accurate discrimination of conserved coding and non-coding regions through multiple indicators of evolutionary dynamics.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extensive identification and analysis of conserved small ORFs in animals.Genome biology · 2015Article
- Utilizing sequence intrinsic composition to classify protein-coding and long non-coding transcripts.Nucleic acids research · 2013Article
- Testing the coding potential of conserved short genomic sequences.Advances in bioinformatics · 2010Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe conservation of sequences between related genomes has long been recognised as an indication of functional significance and recognition of sequence homology is one of the principal approaches used in the annotation of newly sequenced genomes. In the context of recent findings that the number non-coding transcripts in higher organisms is likely to be much higher than previously imagined, discrimination between conserved coding and non-coding sequences is a topic of considerable interest. Additionally, it should be considered desirable to discriminate between coding and non-coding conserved sequences without recourse to the use of sequence similarity searches of protein databases as such approaches exclude the identification of novel conserved proteins without characterized homologs and may be influenced by the presence in databases of sequences which are erroneously annotated as coding.
resultsHere we present a machine learning-based approach for the discrimination of conserved coding sequences. Our method calculates various statistics related to the evolutionary dynamics of two aligned sequences. These features are considered by a Support Vector Machine which designates the alignment coding or non-coding with an associated probability score.
conclusionWe show that our approach is both sensitive and accurate with respect to comparable methods and illustrate several situations in which it may be applied, including the identification of conserved coding regions in genome sequences and the discrimination of coding from non-coding cDNA sequences.
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.