The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
EDGAR 2.0: an enhanced software platform for comparative gene content analyses
Open accessAbstract
The rapidly increasing availability of microbial genome sequences has led to a growing demand for bioinformatics software tools that support the functional analysis based on the comparison of closely related genomes. By utilizing comparative approaches on gene level it is possible to gain insights into the core genes which represent the set of shared features for a set of organisms under study. Vice versa singleton genes can be identified to elucidate the specific properties of an individual genome. Since initial publication, the EDGAR platform has become one of the most established software tools in the field of comparative genomics. Over the last years, the software has been continuously improved and a large number of new analysis features have been added. For the new version, EDGAR 2.0, the gene orthology estimation approach was newly designed and completely re-implemented. Among other new features, EDGAR 2.0 provides extended phylogenetic analysis features like AAI (Average Amino Acid Identity) and ANI (Average Nucleotide Identity) matrices, genome set size statistics and modernized visualizations like interactive synteny plots or Venn diagrams. Thereby, the software supports a quick and user-friendly survey of evolutionary relationships between microbial genomes and simplifies the process of obtaining new biological insights into their differential gene content. All features are offered to the scientific community via a web-based and therefore platform-independent user interface, which allows easy browsing of precomputed datasets. The web server is accessible at http://edgar.computational.bio.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Basic local alignment search tool
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W., & Lipman, D. J. (1990) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1990.9999 · Cited by 98,669
MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput
Edgar, R. C. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh340 · Cited by 44,662
PHYLIP-Phylogeny inference package (Version 3.2)
Felsenstein, J. (1989) · Cladistics · Cited by 17,682
EMBOSS: the European molecular biology open software suite.
Rice, P., Longden, I., & Bleasby, A. (2000) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/s0168-9525(00)02024-2 · Cited by 9,466
Accelerated Profile HMM Searches
Eddy, S. R. (2011) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002195 · Cited by 6,975
Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition
Richter, M., & Rosselló-Móra, R. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0906412106 · Cited by 6,359
DNA–DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities
Goris, J., Konstantinidis, K. T., Klappenbach, J. A., Coenye, T., Vandamme, P., & Tiedje, J. M. (2007) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64483-0 · Cited by 4,750
Tettelin, H., Masignani, V., Cieslewicz, M. J., Donati, C., Medini, D., Ward, N. L., Angiuoli, S. V., Crabtree, J., Jones, A. L., Durkin, A. S., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0506758102 · Cited by 2,631
Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes
Konstantinidis, K. T., & Tiedje, J. M. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0409727102 · Cited by 2,126
Cited by
Experimental Evaluation of Host Adaptation of Lactobacillus reuteri to Different Vertebrate Species
Duar, R. M., Frese, S. A., Lin, X. B., Fernando, S. C., Burkey, T. E., Tasseva, G., Peterson, D. A., Blom, J., Wenzel, C. Q., Szymanski, C. M., et al. (2017) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00132-17 · Cited by 104
Self-citationAgolino, G., Cristofolini, M., Ronsivalle, M. A., Cattivelli, A., Tagliazucchi, D., Caggia, C., Solieri, L., & Randazzo, C. L. (2026) · Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins · doi:10.1007/s12602-025-10810-0 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Blom, J., Kreis, J., Spänig, S., Juhre, T., Bertelli, C., Ernst, C., & Goesmann, A.
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-04-20
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- W1
- Pages
- W22-W28
- ISSN
- 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-4962
- OpenAlex
- W2335901076
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 21.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: EDGAR 2.0: an enhanced software platform for comparative gene content analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/nar/gkw255
- The paper
- Blom, J., Kreis, J., Spänig, S., Juhre, T., Bertelli, C., Ernst, C., & Goesmann, A. (2016). EDGAR 2.0: an enhanced software platform for comparative gene content analyses. Nucleic Acids Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw255
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.