Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27784265›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016

AlignStat: a web-tool and R package for statistical comparison of alternative multiple sequence alignments.

Thomas Shafee, Ira Cooke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Anti-Tick Vaccines: Current Advances and Future Prospects.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Thomas ShafeeDepartment of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086, Australia. T.Shafee@LaTrobe.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2298-7593
Ira CookeDepartment of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlternative sequence alignment algorithms yield different results. It is therefore useful to quantify the similarities and differences between alternative alignments of the same sequences. These measurements can identify regions of consensus that are likely to be most informative in downstream analysis. They can also highlight systematic differences between alignments that relate to differences in the alignment algorithms themselves.

resultsHere we present a simple method for aligning two alternative multiple sequence alignments to one another and assessing their similarity. Differences are categorised into merges, splits or shifts in one alignment relative to the other. A set of graphical visualisations allow for intuitive interpretation of the data.

conclusionsAlignStat enables the easy one-off online use of MSA similarity comparisons or into R pipelines. The web-tool is available at AlignStat.Science.LaTrobe.edu.au. The R package, readme and example data are available on CRAN and GitHub.com/TS404/AlignStat.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalSoftwareAlgorithmsAmino Acid SequenceComputational BiologyHumansSequence AlignmentSequence Homology, Amino Acid

Identifiers

PMID27784265
PMCPMC5081975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.