The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Alignment-free genome comparison with feature frequency profiles (FFP) and optimal resolutions
Open accessAbstract
For comparison of whole-genome (genic + nongenic) sequences, multiple sequence alignment of a few selected genes is not appropriate. One approach is to use an alignment-free method in which feature (or l -mer) frequency profiles (FFP) of whole genomes are used for comparison—a variation of a text or book comparison method, using word frequency profiles. In this approach it is critical to identify the optimal resolution range of l -mers for the given set of genomes compared. The optimum FFP method is applicable for comparing whole genomes or large genomic regions even when there are no common genes with high homology. We outline the method in 3 stages: ( i ) We first show how the optimal resolution range can be determined with English books which have been transformed into long character strings by removing all punctuation and spaces. ( ii ) Next, we test the robustness of the optimized FFP method at the nucleotide level, using a mutation model with a wide range of base substitutions and rearrangements. ( iii ) Finally, to illustrate the utility of the method, phylogenies are reconstructed from concatenated mammalian intronic genomes; the FFP derived intronic genome topologies for each l within the optimal range are all very similar. The topology agrees with the established mammalian phylogeny revealing that intron regions contain a similar level of phylogenic signal as do coding regions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The sequence of the human genome
Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., Myers, E. W., Li, P. W., Mural, R. J., Sutton, G. G., Smith, H. O., Yandell, M., Evans, C. A., Holt, R. A., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1058040 · Cited by 13,909
The ENCODE Project Consortium (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05874 · Cited by 5,223
Cited by
Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome
MetaHIT Consortium (additional members), Arumugam, M., Raes, J., Pelletier, E., Le Paslier, D., Yamada, T., Mende, D. R., Fernandes, G. R., Tap, J., Bruls, T., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09944 · Cited by 7,548
Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21419 · Cited by 1,427
Whole Genome Phylogeny of Bacillus by Feature Frequency Profiles (FFP)
Wang, A., & Ash, G. J. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep13644 · Cited by 517
Viral dark matter and virus–host interactions resolved from publicly available microbial genomes
Roux, S., Hallam, S. J., Woyke, T., & Sullivan, M. B. (2015) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.08490 · Cited by 478
On the Jensen–Shannon Symmetrization of Distances Relying on Abstract Means
Nielsen, F. (2019) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e21050485 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Sims, G. E., Jun, S.-R., Wu, G. A., & Kim, S.-H.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2009-02-24
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2677-2682
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2150774511
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Alignment-free genome comparison with feature frequency profiles (FFP) and optimal resolutions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0813249106
- The paper
- Sims, G. E., Jun, S.-R., Wu, G. A., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Alignment-free genome comparison with feature frequency profiles (FFP) and optimal resolutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0813249106
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.