Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21533202›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Evaluating ortholog prediction algorithms in a yeast model clade.

Leonidas Salichos, Antonis Rokas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Auxin Function in the Brown AlgaPlant physiology · 2019
    Article
  6. AYbRAH: a curated ortholog database for yeasts and fungi spanning 600 million years of evolution.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019
    Article
  7. Mapping the Fungal Battlefield: UsingFrontiers in microbiology · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. SMORE: Synteny Modulator of Repetitive Elements.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Bacterial virulence phenotypes ofScience translational medicine · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leonidas SalichosDepartment of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Antonis Rokas
Vanderbilt University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate identification of orthologs is crucial for evolutionary studies and for functional annotation. Several algorithms have been developed for ortholog delineation, but so far, manually curated genome-scale biological databases of orthologous genes for algorithm evaluation have been lacking. We evaluated four popular ortholog prediction algorithms (MultiParanoid; and OrthoMCL; RBH: Reciprocal Best Hit; RSD: Reciprocal Smallest Distance; the last two extended into clustering algorithms cRBH and cRSD, respectively, so that they can predict orthologs across multiple taxa) against a set of 2,723 groups of high-quality curated orthologs from 6 Saccharomycete yeasts in the Yeast Gene Order Browser.

resultsExamination of sensitivity [TP/(TP+FN)], specificity [TN/(TN+FP)], and accuracy [(TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN)] across a broad parameter range showed that cRBH was the most accurate and specific algorithm, whereas OrthoMCL was the most sensitive. Evaluation of the algorithms across a varying number of species showed that cRBH had the highest accuracy and lowest false discovery rate [FP/(FP+TP)], followed by cRSD. Of the six species in our set, three descended from an ancestor that underwent whole genome duplication. Subsequent differential duplicate loss events in the three descendants resulted in distinct classes of gene loss patterns, including cases where the genes retained in the three descendants are paralogs, constituting 'traps' for ortholog prediction algorithms. We found that the false discovery rate of all algorithms dramatically increased in these traps.

conclusionsThese results suggest that simple algorithms, like cRBH, may be better ortholog predictors than more complex ones (e.g., OrthoMCL and MultiParanoid) for evolutionary and functional genomics studies where the objective is the accurate inference of single-copy orthologs (e.g., molecular phylogenetics), but that all algorithms fail to accurately predict orthologs when paralogy is rampant.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, BiologicalGenome, FungalSaccharomyces cerevisiae

Identifiers

PMID21533202
PMCPMC3076445
OpenAlexW2075171145

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.