ArticleNucleic acids research2011
An alternative approach to multiple genome comparison.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2011. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic characterisation of an extended-spectrum β-Lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolate assigned to a novel sequence type (6914).Gut pathogens · 2024Article
- Genome Re-Annotation and Transcriptome Analyses ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Multiple genome comparison based on overlap regions of pairwise local alignments.BMC bioinformatics · 2012Article
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
Genome comparison is now a crucial step for genome annotation and identification of regulatory motifs. Genome comparison aims for instance at finding genomic regions either specific to or in one-to-one correspondence between individuals/strains/species. It serves e.g. to pre-annotate a new genome by automatically transferring annotations from a known one. However, efficiency, flexibility and objectives of current methods do not suit the whole spectrum of applications, genome sizes and organizations. Innovative approaches are still needed. Hence, we propose an alternative way of comparing multiple genomes based on segmentation by similarity. In this framework, rather than being formulated as a complex optimization problem, genome comparison is seen as a segmentation question for which a single optimal solution can be found in almost linear time. We apply our method to analyse three strains of a virulent pathogenic bacteria, Ehrlichia ruminantium, and identify 92 new genes. We also find out that a substantial number of genes thought to be strain specific have potential orthologs in the other strains. Our solution is implemented in an efficient program, qod, equipped with a user-friendly interface, and enables the automatic transfer of annotations between compared genomes or contigs (Video in Supplementary Data). Because it somehow disregards the relative order of genomic blocks, qod can handle unfinished genomes, which due to the difficulty of sequencing completion may become an interesting characteristic for the future. Availabilty: http://www.atgc-montpellier.fr/qod.
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.