ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Annotation-free delineation of prokaryotic homology groups.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phylogenomic studies of prokaryotic taxa often assume conserved marker genes are homologous across their length. However, processes such as horizontal gene transfer or gene duplication and loss may disrupt this homology by recombining only parts of genes, causing gene fission or fusion. We show using simulation that it is necessary to delineate homology groups in a set of bacterial genomes without relying on gene annotations to define the boundaries of homologous regions. To solve this problem, we have developed a graph-based algorithm to partition a set of bacterial genomes into Maximal Homologous Groups of sequences (MHGs) where each MHG is a maximal set of maximum-length sequences which are homologous across the entire sequence alignment. We applied our algorithm to a dataset of 19 Enterobacteriaceae species and found that MHGs cover much greater proportions of genomes than markers and, relatedly, are less biased in terms of the functions of the genes they cover. We zoomed in on the correlation between each individual marker and their overlapping MHGs, and show that few phylogenetic splits supported by the markers are supported by the MHGs while many marker-supported splits are contradicted by the MHGs. A comparison of the species tree inferred from marker genes with the species tree inferred from MHGs suggests that the increased bias and lack of genome coverage by markers causes incorrect inferences as to the overall relationship between bacterial taxa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.