Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31487289›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Large scale evaluation of differences between network-based and pairwise sequence-alignment-based methods of dendrogram reconstruction.

Daniel Gamermann, Arnau Montagud, J Alberto Conejero, Pedro Fernández de Córdoba, Javier F Urchueguía

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Daniel GamermannInstituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Av. Bento Gonçalves 9500, CP 15051, 91501-970 Porto Alegre RS, Brazil.
Arnau MontagudInstitut Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, 26 rue d'Ulm, F-75005, Paris, France.
J Alberto ConejeroInstituto Universitario de Matemática Pura y Aplicada - IUMPA, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, E-46022 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3681-7533
Pedro Fernández de CórdobaInstituto Universitario de Matemática Pura y Aplicada - IUMPA, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, E-46022 Valencia, Spain.
Javier F UrchueguíaInstituto Universitario de las Telecomunicaciones Avanzadas - ITACA, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, E-46022 Valencia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dendrograms are a way to represent relationships between organisms. Nowadays, these are inferred based on the comparison of genes or protein sequences by taking into account their differences and similarities. The genetic material of choice for the sequence alignments (all the genes or sets of genes) results in distinct inferred dendrograms. In this work, we evaluate differences between dendrograms reconstructed with different methodologies and for different sets of organisms chosen at random from a much larger set. A statistical analysis is performed to estimate fluctuations between the results obtained from the different methodologies that allows us to validate a systematic approach, based on the comparison of the organisms' metabolic networks for inferring dendrograms. This has the advantage that it allows the comparison of organisms very far away in the evolutionary tree even if they have no known ortholog gene in common. Our results show that dendrograms built using information from metabolic networks are similar to the standard sequence-based dendrograms and can be a complement to them.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGene Regulatory NetworksAnimalsComputational BiologyDatabases, FactualHumansModels, MolecularPhylogenyProteinsSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, ProteinProteins

Identifiers

PMID31487289
PMCPMC6728023

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.