Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27006628›Full record

ArticleCurrent genomics2015

Inside the Pan-genome - Methods and Software Overview.

Luis Carlos Guimarães, Jolanta Florczak-Wyspianska, Leandro Benevides de Jesus, Marcus Vinícius Canário Viana, Artur Silva, Rommel Thiago Jucá Ramos, Siomar de Castro Soares, Siomar de Castro Soares

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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

52 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Pangenomic and genomic plasticity analyses of the genus Rickettsia.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Advancing apple genetics research: Malus coronaria and Malus ioensis genomes and a gene family-based pangenome of native North American apples.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Comparative Genomics ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Luis Carlos GuimarãesDepartment of General Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Avenue Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil;; Department of Genetics, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil;
Jolanta Florczak-WyspianskaDepartment of Genetics, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil;
Leandro Benevides de JesusDepartment of General Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Avenue Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil;
Marcus Vinícius Canário VianaDepartment of General Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Avenue Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil;
Artur SilvaDepartment of Genetics, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil;
Rommel Thiago Jucá RamosDepartment of Genetics, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil;
Siomar de Castro SoaresDepartment of Immunology, Microbiology and Parasitology, Institute of Biological Sciences and Natural Sciences Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Siomar de Castro SoaresDepartment of Immunology, Microbiology and Parasitology, Institute of Biological Sciences and Natural Sciences Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of genomes that have been deposited in databases has increased exponentially after the advent of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS), which produces high-throughput sequence data; this circumstance has demanded the development of new bioinformatics software and the creation of new areas, such as comparative genomics. In comparative genomics, the genetic content of an organism is compared against other organisms, which helps in the prediction of gene function and coding region sequences, identification of evolutionary events and determination of phylogenetic relationships. However, expanding comparative genomics to a large number of related bacteria, we can infer their lifestyles, gene repertoires and minimal genome size. In this context, a powerful approach called Pan-genome has been initiated and developed. This approach involves the genomic comparison of different strains of the same species, or even genus. Its main goal is to establish the total number of non-redundant genes that are present in a determined dataset. Pan-genome consists of three parts: core genome; accessory or dispensable genome; and species-specific or strain-specific genes. Furthermore, pan-genome is considered to be "open" as long as new genes are added significantly to the total repertoire for each new additional genome and "closed" when the newly added genomes cannot be inferred to significantly increase the total repertoire of the genes. To perform all of the required calculations, a substantial amount of software has been developed, based on orthologous and paralogous gene identification.

Indexed as

Accessory genomeComparative genomeCore genomePan-genomeSpecies-specific genome

Identifiers

PMID27006628
PMCPMC4765519

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.