ArticleGenetics2016
Comparing the Statistical Fate of Paralogous and Orthologous Sequences.
Article in Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconstructing the Network of Horizontal Gene Exchange in Bacteria to Differentiate Direct and Indirect Transfers.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Modeling the mosaic structure of bacterial genomes to infer their evolutionary history.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For several decades, sequence alignment has been a widely used tool in bioinformatics. For instance, finding homologous sequences with a known function in large databases is used to get insight into the function of nonannotated genomic regions. Very efficient tools like BLAST have been developed to identify and rank possible homologous sequences. To estimate the significance of the homology, the ranking of alignment scores takes a background model for random sequences into account. Using this model we can estimate the probability to find two exactly matching subsequences by chance in two unrelated sequences. For two homologous sequences, the corresponding probability is much higher, which allows us to identify them. Here we focus on the distribution of lengths of exact sequence matches between protein-coding regions of pairs of evolutionarily distant genomes. We show that this distribution exhibits a power-law tail with an exponent [Formula: see text] Developing a simple model of sequence evolution by substitutions and segmental duplications, we show analytically and computationally that paralogous and orthologous gene pairs contribute differently to this distribution. Our model explains the differences observed in the comparison of coding and noncoding parts of genomes, thus providing a better understanding of statistical properties of genomic sequences and their evolution.
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.