ArticleBMC genomics2009
Analysis of genomic signatures in prokaryotes using multinomial regression and hierarchical clustering.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Compression rates of microbial genomes are associated with genome size and base composition.Genomics & informatics · 2024Article
- Genomic Signature in Evolutionary Biology: A Review.Biology · 2023Review
- Application of a Bayesian nonparametric model to derive toxicity estimates based on the response of Antarctic microbial communities to fuel-contaminated soil.Ecology and evolution · 2015Article
- Microbial genomic taxonomy.BMC genomics · 2013Article
- Article
- Mixture models for analysis of the taxonomic composition of metagenomes.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2011Article
- Clustering metagenomic sequences with interpolated Markov models.BMC bioinformatics · 2010Article
- Genomic comparisons of Brucella spp. and closely related bacteria using base compositional and proteome based methods.BMC evolutionary biology · 2010Article
- Distinguishing microbial genome fragments based on their composition: evolutionary and comparative genomic perspectives.Genome biology and evolution · 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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.