Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30952844›Full record

ArticleNature communications2019

Improved measures for evolutionary conservation that exploit taxonomy distances.

Nawar Malhis, Steven J M Jones, Jörg Gsponer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Variant Effect Prediction in the Age of Machine Learning.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024
    Review
  6. 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
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.

Nawar MalhisMichael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4. nmalhis@msl.ubc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1317-833X
Steven J M JonesMichael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V5Z 4S6.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3394-2208
Jörg GsponerMichael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4. gsponer@msl.ubc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selective pressures on protein-coding regions that provide fitness advantages can lead to the regions' fixation and conservation in genome duplications and speciation events. Consequently, conservation analyses relying on sequence similarities are exploited by a myriad of applications across all biosciences to identify functionally important protein regions. While very potent, existing conservation measures based on multiple sequence alignments are so pervasive that improvements to solutions of many problems have become incremental. We introduce a new framework for evolutionary conservation with measures that exploit taxonomy distances across species. Results show that our taxonomy-based framework comfortably outperforms existing conservation measures in identifying deleterious variants observed in the human population, including variants located in non-abundant sequence domains such as intrinsically disordered regions. The predictive power of our approach emphasizes that the phenotypic effects of sequence variants can be taxonomy-level specific and thus, conservation needs to be interpreted accordingly.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetic VariationClassificationHumansProteinsSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, ProteinProteins

Identifiers

PMID30952844
PMCPMC6450959

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.