Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29081686›Full record

ReviewCurrent genomics2017

Ancestral Genome Reconstruction on Whole Genome Level.

Bing Feng, Lingxi Zhou, Jijun Tang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Bing FengSchool of Computer Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin300350, China.
Lingxi ZhouDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC29208, USA.
Jijun TangDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC29208, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparative genomics, evolutionary biology, and cancer researches require tools to elucidate the evolutionary trajectories and reconstruct the ancestral genomes. Various methods have been developed to infer the genome content and gene ordering of ancestral genomes by using such genomic structural variants. There are mainly two kinds of computational approaches in the ancestral genome reconstruction study. Distance/event-based approaches employ genome evolutionary models and reconstruct the ancestral genomes that minimize the total distance or events over the edges of the given phylogeny. The homology/adjacency-based approaches search for the conserved gene adjacencies and genome structures, and assemble these regions into ancestral genomes along the internal node of the given phylogeny. We review the principles and algorithms of these approaches that can reconstruct the ancestral genomes on the whole genome level. We talk about their advantages and limitations of these approaches in dealing with various genome datasets, evolutionary events, and reconstruction problems. We also talk about the improvements and developments of these approaches in the subsequent researches. We select four most famous and powerful approaches from both distance/event-based and homology/adjacency-based categories to analyze and compare their performances in dealing with different kinds of datasets and evolutionary events. Based on our experiment, GASTS has the best performance in solving the problems with equal genome contents that only have genome rearrangement events. PMAG++ achieves the best performance in solving the problems with unequal genome contents that have all possible complicated evolutionary events.

Indexed as

Ancestral reconstructionGene adjacencyGene orderGenome levelSCJWhole genome data

Identifiers

PMID29081686
PMCPMC5635614

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.