Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22151784›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011

On the weight of indels in genomic distances.

Marília D V Braga, Raphael Machado, Leonardo C Ribeiro, Jens Stoye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Generalizations of the genomic rank distance to indels.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Article
  3. Natural family-free genomic distance.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. DCJ-Indel sorting revisited.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2013
    Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Marília D V BragaInstituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia, Duque de Caxias, 25250-020, Brazil. mdbraga@inmetro.gov.br
Raphael Machado
Leonardo C Ribeiro
Jens Stoye

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClassical approaches to compute the genomic distance are usually limited to genomes with the same content, without duplicated markers. However, differences in the gene content are frequently observed and can reflect important evolutionary aspects. A few polynomial time algorithms that include genome rearrangements, insertions and deletions (or substitutions) were already proposed. These methods often allow a block of contiguous markers to be inserted, deleted or substituted at once but result in distance functions that do not respect the triangular inequality and hence do not constitute metrics.

resultsIn the present study we discuss the disruption of the triangular inequality in some of the available methods and give a framework to establish an efficient correction for two models recently proposed, one that includes insertions, deletions and double cut and join (DCJ) operations, and one that includes substitutions and DCJ operations.

conclusionsWe show that the proposed framework establishes the triangular inequality in both distances, by summing a surcharge on indel operations and on substitutions that depends only on the number of markers affected by these operations. This correction can be applied a posteriori, without interfering with the already available formulas to compute these distances. We claim that this correction leads to distances that are biologically more plausible.

Indexed as

INDEL MutationAlgorithmsGenomeGenomicsModels, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID22151784
PMCPMC3283315

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.