ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2011
Computational methods for Gene Orthology inference.
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.
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
135 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combining Annotation Software to Identify Orthologous Genes (CASIO) Provides a New Dataset of Orthologous Genes for Swallowtail Butterflies.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- REvolutionH-tl 2.0: A fast and robust tool for decoding evolutionary gene histories.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- OrthoFinder: improved phylogenetic orthology inference with enhanced accuracy and scalability.Nature methods · 2026Article
- LSGFA: domain-based infraspecific large-scale prokaryotic genomic orthologous gene inference.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Quantifying the Influence of Genetic Context on Duplicated Mammalian Genes.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Genome-wide association mapping, phylogenetic study, and multivariate analysis of component traits of grain yield in wheat under heat stress conditions.Plant molecular biology · 2026Article
- Transposable elements contribute to the evolution of host shift-related genes in cactophilicGenome research · 2026Article
- Comparative functional and evolutionary analysis of essential germline stem cell genes across the genus Drosophila and two outgroup species.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Quest for Orthologs in the era of Data Deluge and AI: Challenges and Innovations in Orthology Prediction and Data Integration.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Review
- Shannon Entropy and Informational Redundancy in Minimally Monophyletic Bryophyte Genera.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Orthology and near-cographs in the context of phylogenetic networks.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2025Article
- A conserved role for centriolar satellites in translation of centrosomal and ciliary proteins.The Journal of cell biology · 2025Article
- Caspase Domain Duplication During the Evolution of Caspase-16.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Quantifying the influence of genetic context on duplicated mammalian genes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- SOI: robust identification of orthologous synteny with the Orthology Index and broad applications in evolutionary genomics.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Exploration of the genetic landscape of bacterial dsDNA viruses reveals an ANI gap amid extensive mosaicism.mSystems · 2025Article
- getphylo: rapid and automatic generation of multi-locus phylogenetic trees.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Hayai-Annotation: A functional gene prediction tool that integrates orthologs and gene ontology for network analysis in plant species.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Genome sequencing of3 Biotech · 2024Article
- SonicParanoid2: fast, accurate, and comprehensive orthology inference with machine learning and language models.Genome biology · 2024Article
75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.