Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24932010›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2014

Evaluating synteny for improved comparative studies.

Cristina G Ghiurcuta, Bernard M E Moret

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing 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

48 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. From pairs of most similar sequences to phylogenetic best matches.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2020
    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

2 authors.

Cristina G GhiurcutaLaboratory for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, EPFL-IC-LCBB INJ 230, Station 14, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Bernard M E MoretLaboratory for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, EPFL-IC-LCBB INJ 230, Station 14, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationComparative genomics aims to understand the structure and function of genomes by translating knowledge gained about some genomes to the object of study. Early approaches used pairwise comparisons, but today researchers are attempting to leverage the larger potential of multi-way comparisons. Comparative genomics relies on the structuring of genomes into syntenic blocks: blocks of sequence that exhibit conserved features across the genomes. Syntenic blocs are required for complex computations to scale to the billions of nucleotides present in many genomes; they enable comparisons across broad ranges of genomes because they filter out much of the individual variability; they highlight candidate regions for in-depth studies; and they facilitate whole-genome comparisons through visualization tools. However, the concept of syntenic block remains loosely defined. Tools for the identification of syntenic blocks yield quite different results, thereby preventing a systematic assessment of the next steps in an analysis. Current tools do not include measurable quality objectives and thus cannot be benchmarked against themselves. Comparisons among tools have also been neglected-what few results are given use superficial measures unrelated to quality or consistency.

resultsWe present a theoretical model as well as an experimental basis for comparing syntenic blocks and thus also for improving or designing tools for the identification of syntenic blocks. We illustrate the application of the model and the measures by applying them to syntenic blocks produced by three different contemporary tools (DRIMM-Synteny, i-ADHoRe and Cyntenator) on a dataset of eight yeast genomes. Our findings highlight the need for a well founded, systematic approach to the decomposition of genomes into syntenic blocks. Our experiments demonstrate widely divergent results among these tools, throwing into question the robustness of the basic approach in comparative genomics. We have taken the first step towards a formal approach to the construction of syntenic blocks by developing a simple quality criterion based on sound evolutionary principles.

Indexed as

SyntenyGenome, FungalGenomicsSequence AlignmentSoftwareYeasts

Identifiers

PMID24932010
PMCPMC4058928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.