Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22217008›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2012

Controversies in modern evolutionary biology: the imperative for error detection and quality control.

Francisco Prosdocimi, Benjamin Linard, Pierre Pontarotti, Olivier Poch, Julie D Thompson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evolution is not Uniform Along Coding Sequences.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  4. Revised eutherian gene collections.BMC genomic data · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Referee: Reference Assembly Quality Scores.Genome biology and evolution · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. FixPred: a resource for correction of erroneous protein sequences.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2014
    Article
  19. MisPred: a resource for identification of erroneous protein sequences in public databases.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2013
    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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Francisco ProsdocimiDepartment of Integrated Structural Biology, IGBMC (Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire) CNRS/INSERM/Université de Strasbourg, 1 rue Laurent Fries, Illkirch, F-67404, France.
Benjamin Linard
Pierre Pontarotti
Olivier Poch
Julie D Thompson
Institut de génétique et de biologie moléculaire et cellulaire · FRAix-Marseille Université · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversité de Strasbourg · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe data from high throughput genomics technologies provide unique opportunities for studies of complex biological systems, but also pose many new challenges. The shift to the genome scale in evolutionary biology, for example, has led to many interesting, but often controversial studies. It has been suggested that part of the conflict may be due to errors in the initial sequences. Most gene sequences are predicted by bioinformatics programs and a number of quality issues have been raised, concerning DNA sequencing errors or badly predicted coding regions, particularly in eukaryotes.

resultsWe investigated the impact of these errors on evolutionary studies and specifically on the identification of important genetic events. We focused on the detection of asymmetric evolution after duplication, which has been the subject of controversy recently. Using the human genome as a reference, we established a reliable set of 688 duplicated genes in 13 complete vertebrate genomes, where significantly different evolutionary rates are observed. We estimated the rates at which protein sequence errors occur and are accumulated in the higher-level analyses. We showed that the majority of the detected events (57%) are in fact artifacts due to the putative erroneous sequences and that these artifacts are sufficient to mask the true functional significance of the events.

conclusionsInitial errors are accumulated throughout the evolutionary analysis, generating artificially high rates of event predictions and leading to substantial uncertainty in the conclusions. This study emphasizes the urgent need for error detection and quality control strategies in order to efficiently extract knowledge from the new genome data.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenomicsAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsArtifactsComputational BiologyHumansMolecular Sequence DataPhylogenyQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, DNASequence Homology

Identifiers

PMID22217008
PMCPMC3311146
OpenAlexW2136126520

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.