Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27103098›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2017

Heterogeneous molecular processes among the causes of how sequence similarity scores can fail to recapitulate phylogeny.

Stephen A Smith, James B Pease

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Orphan genes are not a distinct biological entity.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Stephen A Smith
James B Pease

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sequence similarity tools like Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) are essential components of many functional genetic, genomic, phylogenetic and bioinformatic studies. Many modern analysis pipelines use significant sequence similarity scores (p- or E-values) and the ranked order of BLAST matches to test a wide range of hypotheses concerning homology, orthology, the timing of de novo gene birth/death and gene family expansion/contraction. Despite significant contrary findings, many of these tests still implicitly assume that stronger or higher-ranked E-value scores imply closer phylogenetic relationships between sequences. Here, we demonstrate that even though a general relationship does exist between the phylogenetic distance of two sequences and their E-value, significant and misleading errors occur in both the completeness and the order of results under realistic evolutionary scenarios. These results provide additional details to past evidence showing that studies should avoid drawing direct inferences of evolutionary relatedness from measures of sequence similarity alone, and should instead, where possible, use more rigorous phylogeny-based methods.

Indexed as

PhylogenyComputational BiologySequence AlignmentSoftwareBLASTcompositional biasphylogeneticsphylostratigraphyrate heterogeneitysequence similarity

Identifiers

PMID27103098
PMCPMC5429007

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.