Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33393848›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology2021

Computing the Rearrangement Distance of Natural Genomes.

Leonard Bohnenkämper, Marília D V Braga, Daniel Doerr, Jens Stoye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Reconstructing rearrangement phylogenies of natural genomes.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2025
    Article
  5. An Exact and Fast SAT Formulation for the DCJ Distance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Floor Is Lava: Halving Natural Genomes with Viaducts, Piers, and Pontoons.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. SDRAP for annotating scrambled or rearranged genomes.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Efficient gene orthology inference via large-scale rearrangements.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2023
    Article
  15. Generalizations of the genomic rank distance to indels.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Article
  16. Natural family-free genomic distance.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2021
    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

4 authors.

Leonard BohnenkämperFaculty of Technology and Center for Biotechnology (CeBiTec), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Marília D V BragaFaculty of Technology and Center for Biotechnology (CeBiTec), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Daniel DoerrFaculty of Technology and Center for Biotechnology (CeBiTec), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Jens StoyeFaculty of Technology and Center for Biotechnology (CeBiTec), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The computation of genomic distances has been a very active field of computational comparative genomics over the past 25 years. Substantial results include the polynomial-time computability of the inversion distance by Hannenhalli and Pevzner in 1995 and the introduction of the double cut and join distance by Yancopoulos et al. in 2005. Both results, however, rely on the assumption that the genomes under comparison contain the same set of unique markers (syntenic genomic regions, sometimes also referred to as genes). In 2015, Shao et al. relax this condition by allowing for duplicate markers in the analysis. This generalized version of the genomic distance problem is NP-hard, and they give an integer linear programming (ILP) solution that is efficient enough to be applied to real-world datasets. A restriction of their approach is that it can be applied only to balanced genomes that have equal numbers of duplicates of any marker. Therefore, it still needs a delicate preprocessing of the input data in which excessive copies of unbalanced markers have to be removed. In this article, we present an algorithm solving the genomic distance problem for natural genomes, in which any marker may occur an arbitrary number of times. Our method is based on a new graph data structure, the multi-relational diagram, that allows an elegant extension of the ILP by Shao et al. to count runs of markers that are under- or over-represented in one genome with respect to the other and need to be inserted or deleted, respectively. With this extension, previous restrictions on the genome configurations are lifted, for the first time enabling an uncompromising rearrangement analysis. Any marker sequence can directly be used for the distance calculation. The evaluation of our approach shows that it can be used to analyze genomes with up to a few 10,000 markers, which we demonstrate on simulated and real data.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGenomicsAlgorithmsGene RearrangementGenomeModels, GeneticProgramming, Linearcomparative genomicsDCJ-indel distancegenome rearrangements

Identifiers

PMID33393848
PMCPMC8082732

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.