Cited by 1,238Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesChromosomal and Genetic VariationsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

EnsemblCompara GeneTrees: Complete, duplication-aware phylogenetic trees in vertebrates

Open access
Vilella, Albert J., Severin, Jessica, Ureta-Vidal, Abel, Heng, Li, Durbin, Richard, Birney, Ewan·2009·Genome Research

Abstract

We have developed a comprehensive gene orientated phylogenetic resource, EnsemblCompara GeneTrees, based on a computational pipeline to handle clustering, multiple alignment, and tree generation, including the handling of large gene families. We developed two novel non-sequence-based metrics of gene tree correctness and benchmarked a number of tree methods. The TreeBeST method from TreeFam shows the best performance in our hands. We also compared this phylogenetic approach to clustering approaches for ortholog prediction, showing a large increase in coverage using the phylogenetic approach. All data are made available in a number of formats and will be kept up to date with the Ensembl project.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/gr.073585.107

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • TOGA detected 97.6%, 98.9% and 96.5% of the orthologs provided by Ensembl for human-rat, human-cow, and human-elephant comparisons, respectively.

    “Using orthologs between human and three representative mammals (rat, cow, elephant), TOGA detected 97.6%, 98.9% and 96.5% of the orthologs provided by Ensembl (Fig. 2A, Table S5), showing a good agreement.”

    From Integrating gene annotation with orthology inference at scale (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

    The 'Overlap of ortholog sets' section describes EnsemblCompara ortholog predictions, supporting the identification of Ensembl as an ortholog source. It does not report a TOGA comparison or the 97.6%, 98.9%, and 96.5% detection rates; those results are not supported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Orthologous chains tend to cover several genes located in a conserved order, resulting in higher synteny values, which can help distinguish orthologs from paralogs.

    “Orthologous chains tend to cover several genes located in a conserved order, resulting in higher synteny values, which can help to distinguish orthologs from paralogs (14, 41–43).”

    From Integrating gene annotation with orthology inference at scale (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Gene synteny metric section (page unavailable) says that ordered, flanking orthologous genes indicate conserved gene order, and the Comparison using the synteny metric section uses that measure to assess prediction specificity. The paper does not describe orthologous chains or show that they have higher synteny values than paralogous chains; it also says synteny was not used directly to build its trees. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Gene tree-based methods determine whether the evolutionary lineages of two genes coalesce in a speciation or a duplication node.

    “Gene tree-based methods determine whether the evolutionary lineages of two genes coalesce in a speciation or a duplication node (12–14).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dehal, P.S. and Boore, J.L. 2006. A phylogenomic gene cluster resource: The Phylogenetically Inferred Groups (PhIGs) database. BMC Bioinformatics 7: 201. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-201. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vilella, A. J., Severin, J., Ureta-Vidal, A., Heng, L., Durbin, R., & Birney, E.
Affiliations
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2008-11-24
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
327-335
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7098320409
Cited by
1,238
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 100 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 97 · 2014: 94 · 2013: 104 · 2012: 65
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
gene trees, gene family evolution, ortholog prediction, multiple sequence alignment, gene clustering, vertebrate genomes
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Multigene Family, Humans, Models, Biological, Phylogeny, Software, Vertebrates, Sequence Homology, Computational Biology, Gene Duplication, Synteny

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