ArticleGenome biology and evolution2023
OrthoPhy: A Program to Construct Ortholog Data Sets Using Taxonomic Information.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phyling: phylogenetic inference from annotated genomes.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Chromosome-level genome assembly of the Gerbera (Gerbera hybrida) using HiFi long-read and Hi-C technologies.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2026Article
- Litorerythrobacter xanthomarinus gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium with distinct phenotypic traits from tidal mudflat sediment.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2026Article
- Phylogenomics and the rise of the angiosperms.Nature · 2024Article
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
Species phylogenetic trees represent the evolutionary processes of organisms, and they are fundamental in evolutionary research. Therefore, new methods have been developed to obtain more reliable species phylogenetic trees. A highly reliable method is the construction of an ortholog data set based on sequence information of genes, which is then used to infer the species phylogenetic tree. However, although methods for constructing an ortholog data set for species phylogenetic analysis have been developed, they cannot remove some paralogs, which is necessary for reliable species phylogenetic inference. To address the limitations of current methods, we developed OrthoPhy, a program that excludes paralogs and constructs highly accurate ortholog data sets using taxonomic information dividing analyzed species into monophyletic groups. OrthoPhy can remove paralogs, detecting inconsistencies between taxonomic information and phylogenetic trees of candidate ortholog groups clustered by sequence similarity. Performance tests using evolutionary simulated sequences and real sequences of 40 bacteria revealed that the precision of ortholog inference by OrthoPhy is higher than that of existing programs. Additionally, the phylogenetic analysis of species was more accurate when performed using ortholog data sets constructed by OrthoPhy than that performed using data sets constructed by existing programs. Furthermore, we performed a benchmark test of the Quest for Orthologs using real sequence data and found that the concordance rate between the phylogenetic trees of orthologs inferred by OrthoPhy and those of species was higher than the rates obtained by other ortholog inference programs. Therefore, ortholog data sets constructed using OrthoPhy enabled a more accurate phylogenetic analysis of species than those constructed using the existing programs, and OrthoPhy can be used for the phylogenetic analysis of species even for distantly related species that have experienced many evolutionary events.
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.