ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2014
Evaluating synteny for improved comparative studies.
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.
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
48 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensing Underwater: Diversifying Selection, Convergent Evolution and Inactivation in Sensory Receptors' Genes of Aquatic Mammals.Journal of molecular evolution · 2026Article
- CHITRA: an interactive visualization tool for comparative genomic rearrangement analysis.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Quantifying Hierarchical Conflicts in Homology Statements.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Recessive variants in the intergenic NOS1AP-C1orf226 locus cause monogenic kidney disease responsive to anti-proteinuric treatment.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Genome-wide identification of the cytochrome P450 superfamily in Trichoplusia ni and in-silico expression of resistance against HDAC inhibitors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Genome-wide identification, expression profile and selection analysis of the CPK gene family in Nelumbo nucifera.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Article
- Genome-wide identification and characterization of flowering genes in Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck: a comparison among C. Medica L., C. Reticulata Blanco, C. Grandis (L.) Osbeck and C. Clementina.BMC genomic data · 2024Article
- Gene Characterization of Nocturnin Paralogues in Goldfish: Full Coding Sequences, Structure, Phylogeny and Tissue Expression.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Imprinted Genes: Genomic Conservation, Transcriptomic Dynamics and Phenomic Significance in Health and Diseases.International journal of biological sciences · 2023Review
- Evaluating impacts of syntenic block detection strategies on rearrangement phylogeny using Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Analysis of Homologous Regions of Small RNAsCells · 2022Article
- A chromosomal inversion may facilitate adaptation despite periodic gene flow in a freshwater fish.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- The bZIP Transcription Factor Family in Adzuki Bean (Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Genome sequencing and analysis uncover the regulatory elements involved in the development and oil biosynthesis ofFrontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Orthology and synteny analysis of receptor-like kinases "RLK" and receptor-like proteins "RLP" in legumes.BMC genomics · 2021Article
- Genome-wide analysis of the abiotic stress-related bZIP family in switchgrass.Molecular biology reports · 2020Article
- Analysis of local genome rearrangement improves resolution of ancestral genomic maps in plants.BMC genomics · 2020Article
- Genome- and Transcriptome-Wide Identification of C3Hs in Common Bean (Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- From pairs of most similar sequences to phylogenetic best matches.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.