ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2015
Homology-independent metrics for comparative genomics.
Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- ABP-B9, a new strain ofFrontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Functional characterization of prokaryotic dark matter: the road so far and what lies ahead.Current research in microbial sciences · 2022Review
- Pirahy virus: Identification of a new and potential emerging arbovirus in South Brazil.Virus evolution · 2021Article
- Article
- Multilevel comparative bioinformatics to investigate evolutionary relationships and specificities in gene annotations: an example for tomato and grapevine.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Pan4Draft: A Computational Tool to Improve the Accuracy of Pan-Genomic Analysis Using Draft Genomes.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Sequence-Specific Sensing of Nucleic Acids.Trends in immunology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A mainstream procedure to analyze the wealth of genomic data available nowadays is the detection of homologous regions shared across genomes, followed by the extraction of biological information from the patterns of conservation and variation observed in such regions. Although of pivotal importance, comparative genomic procedures that rely on homology inference are obviously not applicable if no homologous regions are detectable. This fact excludes a considerable portion of "genomic dark matter" with no significant similarity - and, consequently, no inferred homology to any other known sequence - from several downstream comparative genomic methods. In this review we compile several sequence metrics that do not rely on homology inference and can be used to compare nucleotide sequences and extract biologically meaningful information from them. These metrics comprise several compositional parameters calculated from sequence data alone, such as GC content, dinucleotide odds ratio, and several codon bias metrics. They also share other interesting properties, such as pervasiveness (patterns persist on smaller scales) and phylogenetic signal. We also cite examples where these homology-independent metrics have been successfully applied to support several bioinformatics challenges, such as taxonomic classification of biological sequences without homology inference. They where also used to detect higher-order patterns of interactions in biological systems, ranging from detecting coevolutionary trends between the genomes of viruses and their hosts to characterization of gene pools of entire microbial communities. We argue that, if correctly understood and applied, homology-independent metrics can add important layers of biological information in comparative genomic studies without prior homology inference.
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.