Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29163633›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2017

New Tools in Orthology Analysis: A Brief Review of Promising Perspectives.

Bruno T L Nichio, Jeroniza Nunes Marchaukoski, Roberto Tadeu Raittz

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Orthology and near-cographs in the context of phylogenetic networks.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Unbiased anchors for reliable genome-wide synteny detection.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bruno T L NichioDepartment of Bioinformatics, Professional and Technical Education Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Jeroniza Nunes MarchaukoskiDepartment of Bioinformatics, Professional and Technical Education Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Roberto Tadeu RaittzDepartment of Bioinformatics, Professional and Technical Education Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Paraná · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bioinformaticscomparative analysisgenomic dynamicsorthology predictionphylogeny

Identifiers

PMID29163633
PMCPMC5674930
OpenAlexW2766147358

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.