Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19845945›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2009

Analysis of genomic signatures in prokaryotes using multinomial regression and hierarchical clustering.

Jon Bohlin, Eystein Skjerve, David W Ussery

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Microbial genomic taxonomy.BMC genomics · 2013
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jon BohlinNorwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway. jon.bohlin@veths.no
Eystein Skjerve
David W Ussery
Norwegian Veterinary Institute · NOTechnical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently there has been an explosion in the availability of bacterial genomic sequences, making possible now an analysis of genomic signatures across more than 800 hundred different bacterial chromosomes, from a wide variety of environments.Using genomic signatures, we pair-wise compared 867 different genomic DNA sequences, taken from chromosomes and plasmids more than 100,000 base-pairs in length. Hierarchical clustering was performed on the outcome of the comparisons before a multinomial regression model was fitted. The regression model included the cluster groups as the response variable with AT content, phyla, growth temperature, selective pressure, habitat, sequence size, oxygen requirement and pathogenicity as predictors.

resultsMany significant factors were associated with the genomic signature, most notably AT content. Phyla was also an important factor, although considerably less so than AT content. Small improvements to the regression model, although significant, were also obtained by factors such as sequence size, habitat, growth temperature, selective pressure measured as oligonucleotide usage variance, and oxygen requirement.

conclusionThe statistics obtained using hierarchical clustering and multinomial regression analysis indicate that the genomic signature is shaped by many factors, and this may explain the varying ability to classify prokaryotic organisms below genus level.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialBacteriaCluster AnalysisComparative Genomic HybridizationDNA, BacterialGenomicsPhylogenyRegression AnalysisSequence Analysis, DNADNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID19845945
PMCPMC2770534
OpenAlexW2050894053

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.