Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21690100›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2011

Computational methods for Gene Orthology inference.

David M Kristensen, Yuri I Wolf, Arcady R Mushegian, Eugene V Koonin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

135 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Orthology and near-cographs in the context of phylogenetic networks.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Genome sequencing of3 Biotech · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

David M KristensenNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.
Yuri I Wolf
Arcady R Mushegian
Eugene V Koonin

Funding

Comparative Analysis Of Completely Sequenced GenomesZIALM000073 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KOONIN, EUGENE V · 2009 to 2025
$43.1M
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLETELY SEQUENCED GENOMESZ01LM000073 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KOONIN, EUGENE V · 1996 to 2008
$1.2M
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 LM000073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate inference of orthologous genes is a pre-requisite for most comparative genomics studies, and is also important for functional annotation of new genomes. Identification of orthologous gene sets typically involves phylogenetic tree analysis, heuristic algorithms based on sequence conservation, synteny analysis, or some combination of these approaches. The most direct tree-based methods typically rely on the comparison of an individual gene tree with a species tree. Once the two trees are accurately constructed, orthologs are straightforwardly identified by the definition of orthology as those homologs that are related by speciation, rather than gene duplication, at their most recent point of origin. Although ideal for the purpose of orthology identification in principle, phylogenetic trees are computationally expensive to construct for large numbers of genes and genomes, and they often contain errors, especially at large evolutionary distances. Moreover, in many organisms, in particular prokaryotes and viruses, evolution does not appear to have followed a simple 'tree-like' mode, which makes conventional tree reconciliation inapplicable. Other, heuristic methods identify probable orthologs as the closest homologous pairs or groups of genes in a set of organisms. These approaches are faster and easier to automate than tree-based methods, with efficient implementations provided by graph-theoretical algorithms enabling comparisons of thousands of genomes. Comparisons of these two approaches show that, despite conceptual differences, they produce similar sets of orthologs, especially at short evolutionary distances. Synteny also can aid in identification of orthologs. Often, tree-based, sequence similarity- and synteny-based approaches can be combined into flexible hybrid methods.

Indexed as

GenomePhylogenySyntenyAlgorithmsAnimalsComputational BiologyEvolution, MolecularGenomicsHumans

Identifiers

PMID21690100
PMCPMC3178053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.