Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38819566›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024

Bioinformatic Approaches for Comparative Analysis of Viruses.

Erick Gustavo Dorlass, Deyvid Emanuel Amgarten

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. 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. Review
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

2 authors.

Erick Gustavo DorlassHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Deyvid Emanuel AmgartenHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of viral genomic studies has experienced an unprecedented increase in data volume. New strains of known viruses are constantly being added to the GenBank database and so are completely new species with little or no resemblance to our databases of sequences. In addition to this, metagenomic techniques have the potential to further increase the number and rate of sequenced genomes. Besides, it is important to consider that viruses have a set of unique features that often break down molecular biology dogmas, e.g., the flux of information from RNA to DNA in retroviruses and the use of RNA molecules as genomes. As a result, extracting meaningful information from viral genomes remains a challenge and standard methods for comparing the unknown and our databases of characterized sequences may need adaptations. Thus, several bioinformatic approaches and tools have been created to address the challenge of analyzing viral data. This chapter offers descriptions and protocols of some of the most important bioinformatic techniques for comparative analysis of viruses. The authors also provide comments and discussion on how viruses' unique features can affect standard analyses and how to overcome some of the major sources of problems. Protocols and topics emphasize online tools (which are more accessible to users) and give the real experience of what most bioinformaticians do in day-by-day work with command-line pipelines. The topics discussed include (1) clustering related genomes, (2) whole genome multiple sequence alignments for small RNA viruses, (3) protein alignment for marker genes and species affiliation, (4) variant calling and annotation, and (5) virome analyses and pathogen identification.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGenome, ViralVirusesDatabases, GeneticSoftwareBioinformaticsBLASTClinical metagenomicsComparative analysisGenomicsMetagenomicsMultiple sequence alignmentPhylogeniesViral genomesViromeVirus

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.