ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2015
Rock, paper, scissors: harnessing complementarity in ortholog detection methods improves comparative genomic inference.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surveying alignment-free features for Ortholog detection in related yeast proteomes by using supervised big data classifiers.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- ECOdrug: a database connecting drugs and conservation of their targets across species.Nucleic acids research · 2018Article
- WORMHOLE: Novel Least Diverged Ortholog Prediction through Machine Learning.PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
- Towards Consensus Gene Ages.Genome biology and evolution · 2016Article
- Applications of comparative evolution to human disease genetics.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2015Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Ortholog detection (OD) is a lynchpin of most statistical methods in comparative genomics. This task involves accurately identifying genes across species that descend from a common ancestral sequence. OD methods comprise a wide variety of approaches, each with their own benefits and costs under a variety of evolutionary and practical scenarios. In this article, we examine the proteomes of ten mammals by using four methodologically distinct, rigorously filtered OD methods. In head-to-head comparisons, we find that these algorithms significantly outperform one another for 38-45% of the genes analyzed. We leverage this high complementarity through the development MOSAIC, or Multiple Orthologous Sequence Analysis and Integration by Cluster optimization, the first tool for integrating methodologically diverse OD methods. Relative to the four methods examined, MOSAIC more than quintuples the number of alignments for which all species are present while simultaneously maintaining or improving functional-, phylogenetic-, and sequence identity-based measures of ortholog quality. Further, this improvement in alignment quality yields more confidently aligned sites and higher levels of overall conservation, while simultaneously detecting of up to 180% more positively selected sites. We close by highlighting a MOSAIC-specific positively selected sites near the active site of TPSAB1, an enzyme linked to asthma, heart disease, and irritable bowel disease. MOSAIC alignments, source code, and full documentation are available at http://pythonhosted.org/bio-MOSAIC.
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.