The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computational methods for Gene Orthology inference
Open accessAbstract
Accurate inference of orthologous genes is a pre-requisite for most comparative genomics studies, and is also important for functional annotation of new genomes. Identification of orthologous gene sets typically involves phylogenetic tree analysis, heuristic algorithms based on sequence conservation, synteny analysis, or some combination of these approaches. The most direct tree-based methods typically rely on the comparison of an individual gene tree with a species tree. Once the two trees are accurately constructed, orthologs are straightforwardly identified by the definition of orthology as those homologs that are related by speciation, rather than gene duplication, at their most recent point of origin. Although ideal for the purpose of orthology identification in principle, phylogenetic trees are computationally expensive to construct for large numbers of genes and genomes, and they often contain errors, especially at large evolutionary distances. Moreover, in many organisms, in particular prokaryotes and viruses, evolution does not appear to have followed a simple 'tree-like' mode, which makes conventional tree reconciliation inapplicable. Other, heuristic methods identify probable orthologs as the closest homologous pairs or groups of genes in a set of organisms. These approaches are faster and easier to automate than tree-based methods, with efficient implementations provided by graph-theoretical algorithms enabling comparisons of thousands of genomes. Comparisons of these two approaches show that, despite conceptual differences, they produce similar sets of orthologs, especially at short evolutionary distances. Synteny also can aid in identification of orthologs. Often, tree-based, sequence similarity- and synteny-based approaches can be combined into flexible hybrid methods.
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
BLAST+: architecture and applications
Camacho, C., Coulouris, G., Avagyan, V., Ma, N., Papadopoulos, J., Bealer, K., & Madden, T. L. (2009) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 · Cited by 22,074
FastTree 2 – Approximately Maximum-Likelihood Trees for Large Alignments
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S., & Arkin, A. P. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 · Cited by 14,894
OrthoMCL: Identification of Ortholog Groups for Eukaryotic Genomes
Li, L., Stoeckert, C. J., & Roos, D. S. (2003) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.1224503 · Cited by 5,707
International Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03154 · Cited by 2,750
EnsemblCompara GeneTrees: Complete, duplication-aware phylogenetic trees in vertebrates
Vilella, A. J., Severin, J., Ureta-Vidal, A., Heng, L., Durbin, R., & Birney, E. (2009) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.073585.107 · Cited by 1,238
Prokaryotic Evolution in Light of Gene Transfer
Gogarten, J. P., Doolittle, W. F., & Lawrence, J. G. (2002) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004046 · Cited by 986
A minimal gene set for cellular life derived by comparison of complete bacterial genomes
Mushegian, A. R., & Koonin, E. V. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.19.10268 · Cited by 916
Self-citationComparative genomics, minimal gene-sets and the last universal common ancestor
Koonin, E. V. (2003) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro751 · Cited by 661
Self-citationeggNOG: automated construction and annotation of orthologous groups of genes
Jensen, L. J., Julien, P., Kuhn, M., von Mering, C., Muller, J., Doerks, T., & Bork, P. (2007) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkm796 · Cited by 547
Horizontal Transfer, Not Duplication, Drives the Expansion of Protein Families in Prokaryotes
Treangen, T. J., & Rocha, E. P. C. (2011) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001284 · Cited by 509 · cited 1×
“gene transfer (HGT) is a major component of the evolution of these organisms [39–45], so that their evolutionary history has to be represented by graphs that include not only vertical but also horizontal branches; algorithms for mapping of speciation and gene duplication events in such complex graphs are still unavail…”
Background
Cited by
OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics
Emms, D. M., & Kelly, S. (2019) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1832-y · Cited by 7,676
Wang, Y., Coleman-Derr, D., Chen, G., & Gu, Y. Q. (2015) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkv487 · Cited by 888
Xu, L., Dong, Z., Fang, L., Luo, Y., Wei, Z., Guo, H., Zhang, G., Gu, Y. Q., Coleman-Derr, D., Xia, Q., et al. (2019) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkz333 · Cited by 850
Functional and evolutionary implications of gene orthology
Gabaldón, T., & Koonin, E. V. (2013) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3456 · Cited by 643
Self-citationPhylogenetic tree building in the genomic age
Kapli, P., Yang, Z., & Telford, M. J. (2020) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-020-0233-0 · Cited by 533
Metadata
- Authors
- Kristensen, D. M., Wolf, Y. I., Mushegian, A. R., & Koonin, E. V.
- Venue
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-06-19
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 379-391
- ISSN
- 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4054
- OpenAlex
- W2099321785
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 9.05
- 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: Computational methods for Gene Orthology inference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bib/bbr030
- The paper
- Kristensen, D. M., Wolf, Y. I., Mushegian, A. R., & Koonin, E. V. (2011). Computational methods for Gene Orthology inference. Briefings in Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbr030
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.