ArticlePloS one2024
Speeding genomic island discovery through systematic design of reference database composition.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The TIGER/Islander resource for genomic islands.Microbiology resource announcements · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenomic islands (GIs) are mobile genetic elements that integrate site-specifically into bacterial chromosomes, bearing genes that affect phenotypes such as pathogenicity and metabolism. GIs typically occur sporadically among related bacterial strains, enabling comparative genomic approaches to GI identification. For a candidate GI in a query genome, the number of reference genomes with a precise deletion of the GI serves as a support value for the GI. Our comparative software for GI identification was slowed by our original use of large reference genome databases (DBs). Here we explore smaller species-focused DBs.
resultsWith increasing DB size, recovery of our reliable prophage GI calls reached a plateau, while recovery of less reliable GI calls (FPs) increased rapidly as DB sizes exceeded ~500 genomes; i.e., overlarge DBs can increase FP rates. Paradoxically, relative to prophages, FPs were both more frequently supported only by genomes outside the species and more frequently supported only by genomes inside the species; this may be due to their generally lower support values. Setting a DB size limit for our SMAll Ranked Tailored (SMART) DB design speeded runtime ~65-fold. Strictly intra-species DBs would tend to lower yields of prophages for small species (with few genomes available); simulations with large species showed that this could be partially overcome by reaching outside the species to closely related taxa, without an FP burden. Employing such taxonomic outreach in DB design generated redundancy in the DB set; as few as 2984 DBs were needed to cover all 47894 prokaryotic species.
conclusionsRuntime decreased dramatically with SMART DB design, with only minor losses of prophages. We also describe potential utility in other comparative genomics projects.
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.