Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26839085›Full record

ArticleFunctional & integrative genomics2016

An analysis of the validity and utility of the proximon proposition.

Gregory Vey, Trevor C Charles

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Functional & integrative genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Gregory VeyDepartment of Biology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W., Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. gvey@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1574-1373
Trevor C CharlesDepartment of Biology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W., Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The utilization of metagenomic functional interactions represents a key technique for metagenomic functional annotation efforts. By definition, metagenomic operons represent such interactions, but many operon predictions protocols rely on information about orthology and/or gene function that is frequently unavailable for metagenomic genes. Recently, the concept of the metagenomic proximon was proposed for use in metagenomic scenarios where supplemental information is sparse. In this paper, we examine the validity and utility of the proximon proposition by measuring the extent to which proximons emulate actual operons. Using the Escherichia coli K-12 genome, we compare proximons and operons from the same genome and observe the configurations and cardinalities among their corresponding mappings. The results demonstrate that the vast majority of proximons map discretely to a single operon in a conservative fashion where a typical proximon is synonymous to an equivalent or truncated operon. However, a large proportion of operons had no corresponding mappings to any proximon. Various perspectives of operon and proximon intersection are discussed, along with the potential limitations for proximon detection and usage.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenome, BacterialMetagenomicsOperonChromosome MappingEscherichia coli K12Models, GeneticSoftwareFunctional interactionFunctional metagenomicsOperonProximon

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.