ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024
SCARAP: scalable cross-species comparative genomics of prokaryotes.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Species and strain sharing in the vaginal microbiome of mothers and their adult daughters.Cell reports · 2026Article
- Skin Infection Pathogenicity Associated with a Canine Microbiome Resident: Polygenic Architecture of Virulence Factors inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pangenome-based design of strain-specific primers enables precise monitoring of bacteria in human microbiome intervention trials.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exopolysaccharides of Lactobacillus crispatus mediate key balancing interactions with the vaginal mucosa.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2026Article
- Prevalence and stable acquisition of biogenic amine-synthesizing genes in lactic acid bacteria across diverse niches: implications for food safety and human health.NPJ science of food · 2025Article
- Host-independent synergism between Lactobacillus crispatus and other vaginal lactobacilli.Cell reports · 2025Article
- Draft genome sequences of a strain ofMicrobiology 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationMuch of prokaryotic comparative genomics currently relies on two critical computational tasks: pangenome inference and core genome inference. Pangenome inference involves clustering genes from a set of genomes into gene families, enabling genome-wide association studies and evolutionary history analysis. The core genome represents gene families present in nearly all genomes and is required to infer a high-quality phylogeny. For species-level datasets, fast pangenome inference tools have been developed. However, tools applicable to more diverse datasets are currently slow and scale poorly.
resultsHere, we introduce SCARAP, a program containing three modules for comparative genomics analyses: a fast and scalable pangenome inference module, a direct core genome inference module, and a module for subsampling representative genomes. When benchmarked against existing tools, the SCARAP pan module proved up to an order of magnitude faster with comparable accuracy. The core module was validated by comparing its result against a core genome extracted from a full pangenome. The sample module demonstrated the rapid sampling of genomes with decreasing novelty. Applied to a dataset of over 31 000 Lactobacillales genomes, SCARAP showcased its ability to derive a representative pangenome. Finally, we applied the novel concept of gene fixation frequency to this pangenome, showing that Lactobacillales genes that are prevalent but rarely fixate in species often encode bacteriophage functions. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The SCARAP toolkit is publicly available at https://github.com/swittouck/scarap.
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.