ReviewMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2021
Revisiting Evaluation of Multiple Sequence Alignment Methods.
Review in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A deep learning-based score to evaluate multiple sequence alignments.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Protein Language Models: Applications and Perspectives.Journal of proteome research · 2026Review
- A generative adversarial network for multiple reads reconstruction in DNA storage.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Role of Enzymes Capable of Transporting Phosphatidylserine in Brain Development and Brain Diseases.ACS omega · 2024Review
- Exploring the role of endogenous retroviruses in seasonal reproductive cycles: a case study of the ERV-V envelope gene in mink.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Identification of a flavonoid C-glycosyltransferase from fern species Stenoloma chusanum and the application in synthesizing flavonoid C-glycosides in Escherichia coli.Microbial cell factories · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple sequence alignment is a core first step in many bioinformatics analyses, and errors in these alignments can have negative consequences for scientific studies. In this article, we review some of the recent literature evaluating multiple sequence alignment methods and identify specific challenges that arise when performing these evaluations. In particular, we discuss the different trends observed in simulation studies and when using biological benchmarks. Overall, we find that multiple sequence alignment, far from being a "solved problem," would benefit from new attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33289899What 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.