Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28968633›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2019

Microbial genome analysis: the COG approach.

Michael Y Galperin, David M Kristensen, Kira S Makarova, Yuri I Wolf, Eugene V Koonin

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 158 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
158citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

158 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 300 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

98 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Michael Y Galperin
David M Kristensen
Kira S Makarova
Yuri I Wolf
Eugene V Koonin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For the past 20 years, the Clusters of Orthologous Genes (COG) database had been a popular tool for microbial genome annotation and comparative genomics. Initially created for the purpose of evolutionary classification of protein families, the COG have been used, apart from straightforward functional annotation of sequenced genomes, for such tasks as (i) unification of genome annotation in groups of related organisms; (ii) identification of missing and/or undetected genes in complete microbial genomes; (iii) analysis of genomic neighborhoods, in many cases allowing prediction of novel functional systems; (iv) analysis of metabolic pathways and prediction of alternative forms of enzymes; (v) comparison of organisms by COG functional categories; and (vi) prioritization of targets for structural and functional characterization. Here we review the principles of the COG approach and discuss its key advantages and drawbacks in microbial genome analysis.

Indexed as

Genome, MicrobialComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinEvolution, MolecularGenomicsMolecular Sequence AnnotationMultigene FamilyPhylogenyProteinsProteinscomparative genomicsenzyme evolutiongenome annotationorthologsparalogs

Identifiers

PMID28968633
PMCPMC6781585
OpenAlexW2755432955

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.