Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34404422›Full record

ArticleAlgorithms for molecular biology : AMB2021

Heuristic algorithms for best match graph editing.

David Schaller, Manuela Geiß, Marc Hellmuth, Peter F Stadler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

David SchallerMax Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Inselstraße 22, D-04109 Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. sdavid@bioinf.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0025-3097
Manuela GeißSoftware Competence Center Hagenberg GmbH, Softwarepark 21, A-4232, Hagenberg, Austria.
Marc HellmuthDepartment of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Stockholm University, SE-10691, Stockholm, Sweden.
Peter F StadlerMax Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Inselstraße 22, D-04109 Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

competence centers for excellent technologies 865891Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft< STA 850/49-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBest match graphs (BMGs) are a class of colored digraphs that naturally appear in mathematical phylogenetics as a representation of the pairwise most closely related genes among multiple species. An arc connects a gene x with a gene y from another species (vertex color) Y whenever it is one of the phylogenetically closest relatives of x. BMGs can be approximated with the help of similarity measures between gene sequences, albeit not without errors. Empirical estimates thus will usually violate the theoretical properties of BMGs. The corresponding graph editing problem can be used to guide error correction for best match data. Since the arc set modification problems for BMGs are NP-complete, efficient heuristics are needed if BMGs are to be used for the practical analysis of biological sequence data.

resultsSince BMGs have a characterization in terms of consistency of a certain set of rooted triples (binary trees on three vertices) defined on the set of genes, we consider heuristics that operate on triple sets. As an alternative, we show that there is a close connection to a set partitioning problem that leads to a class of top-down recursive algorithms that are similar to Aho's supertree algorithm and give rise to BMG editing algorithms that are consistent in the sense that they leave BMGs invariant. Extensive benchmarking shows that community detection algorithms for the partitioning steps perform best for BMG editing.

conclusionNoisy BMG data can be corrected with sufficient accuracy and efficiency to make BMGs an attractive alternative to classical phylogenetic methods.

Indexed as

Arc modification problemsConsistent algorithmHeuristic algorithmNP-hardness

Identifiers

PMID34404422
PMCPMC8369769

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.