ReviewFrontiers in genetics2017
New Tools in Orthology Analysis: A Brief Review of Promising Perspectives.
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discovering New Orthologous Groups with P-COGs.Biochemical genetics · 2026Article
- OrthoFinder: improved phylogenetic orthology inference with enhanced accuracy and scalability.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Orthology and near-cographs in the context of phylogenetic networks.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2025Article
- Interspecies predictions of growth traits from quantitative transcriptome data acquired during fruit development.Journal of experimental botany · 2025Article
- Ecological interactions and genomic innovation fueled the evolution of ray-finned fish endothermy.Science advances · 2025Article
- Feature Architecture-Aware Ortholog Search With fDOG Reveals the Distribution of Plant Cell Wall-Degrading Enzymes Across Life.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Lost in translation: What we have learned from attributes that do not translate from Arabidopsis to other plants.The Plant cell · 2025Review
- Unbiased anchors for reliable genome-wide synteny detection.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2025Article
- getphylo: rapid and automatic generation of multi-locus phylogenetic trees.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Rapid SARS-CoV-2 surveillance using clinical, pooled, or wastewater sequence as a sensor for population change.Genome research · 2024Article
- DAVID Ortholog: an integrative tool to enhance functional analysis through orthologs.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Machine learning and bioinformatics approaches for classification and clinical detection of bevacizumab responsive glioblastoma subtypes based on miRNA expression.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Distinguishing Evolutionary Conservation from Derivedness.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Gene Regulatory Network Inference and Gene Module Regulating Virulence inFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- The Lepidopteran KAAT1 and CAATCH1: Orthologs to Understand Structure-Function Relationships in Mammalian SLC6 Transporters.Neurochemical research · 2022Article
- An Update on "Reverse Vaccinology": The Pathway from Genomes and Epitope Predictions to Tailored, Recombinant Vaccines.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Review
- Reciprocal best structure hits: using AlphaFold models to discover distant homologues.Bioinformatics advances · 2022Article
- Mapping the FtsQBL divisome components in bacterial NTD pathogens as potential drug targets.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Assessing conservation of alternative splicing with evolutionary splicing graphs.Genome research · 2021Article
- Complete Characterization of Incorrect Orthology Assignments in Best Match Graphs.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nowadays defying homology relationships among sequences is essential for biological research. Within homology the analysis of orthologs sequences is of great importance for computational biology, annotation of genomes and for phylogenetic inference. Since 2007, with the increase in the number of new sequences being deposited in large biological databases, researchers have begun to analyse computerized methodologies and tools aimed at selecting the most promising ones in the prediction of orthologous groups. Literature in this field of research describes the problems that the majority of available tools show, such as those encountered in accuracy, time required for analysis (especially in light of the increasing volume of data being submitted, which require faster techniques) and the automatization of the process without requiring manual intervention. Conducting our search through BMC, Google Scholar, NCBI PubMed, and Expasy, we examined more than 600 articles pursuing the most recent techniques and tools developed to solve most the problems still existing in orthology detection. We listed the main computational tools created and developed between 2011 and 2017, taking into consideration the differences in the type of orthology analysis, outlining the main features of each tool and pointing to the problems that each one tries to address. We also observed that several tools still use as their main algorithm the BLAST "all-against-all" methodology, which entails some limitations, such as limited number of queries, computational cost, and high processing time to complete the analysis. However, new promising tools are being developed, like OrthoVenn (which uses the Venn diagram to show the relationship of ortholog groups generated by its algorithm); or proteinOrtho (which improves the accuracy of ortholog groups); or ReMark (tackling the integration of the pipeline to turn the entry process automatic); or OrthAgogue (using algorithms developed to minimize processing time); and proteinOrtho (developed for dealing with large amounts of biological data). We made a comparison among the main features of four tool and tested them using four for prokaryotic genomas. We hope that our review can be useful for researchers and will help them in selecting the most appropriate tool for their work in the field of orthology.
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.