ArticlePloS one2012
Reference-free comparative genomics of 174 chloroplasts.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cnidaria: fast, reference-free clustering of raw and assembled genome and transcriptome NGS data.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- An assembly and alignment-free method of phylogeny reconstruction from next-generation sequencing data.BMC genomics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct analysis of unassembled genomic data could greatly increase the power of short read DNA sequencing technologies and allow comparative genomics of organisms without a completed reference available. Here, we compare 174 chloroplasts by analyzing the taxanomic distribution of short kmers across genomes [1]. We then assemble de novo contigs centered on informative variation. The localized de novo contigs can be separated into two major classes: tip = unique to a single genome and group = shared by a subset of genomes. Prior to assembly, we found that ~18% of the chloroplast was duplicated in the inverted repeat (IR) region across a four-fold difference in genome sizes, from a highly reduced parasitic orchid [2] to a massive algal chloroplast [3], including gnetophytes [4] and cycads [5]. The conservation of this ratio between single copy and duplicated sequence was basal among green plants, independent of photosynthesis and mechanism of genome size change, and different in gymnosperms and lower plants. Major lineages in the angiosperm clade differed in the pattern of shared kmers and de novo contigs. For example, parasitic plants demonstrated an expected accelerated overall rate of evolution, while the hemi-parasitic genomes contained a great deal more novel sequence than holo-parasitic plants, suggesting different mechanisms at different stages of genomic contraction. Additionally, the legumes are diverging more quickly and in different ways than other major families. Small duplicated fragments of the rrn23 genes were deeply conserved among seed plants, including among several species without the IR regions, indicating a crucial functional role of this duplication. Localized de novo assembly of informative kmers greatly reduces the complexity of large comparative analyses by confining the analysis to a small partition of data and genomes relevant to the specific question, allowing direct analysis of next-gen sequence data from previously unstudied genomes and rapid discovery of informative candidate regions.
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.