Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 411

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EDGAR: A software framework for the comparative analysis of prokaryotic genomes

Open access
Blom, Jochen, Albaum, Stefan P, Doppmeier, Daniel, Pühler, Alfred, Vorhölter, Frank-Jörg, Zakrzewski, Martha, Goesmann, Alexander·2009·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The introduction of next generation sequencing approaches has caused a rapid increase in the number of completely sequenced genomes. As one result of this development, it is now feasible to analyze large groups of related genomes in a comparative approach. A main task in comparative genomics is the identification of orthologous genes in different genomes and the classification of genes as core genes or singletons. RESULTS: To support these studies EDGAR - "Efficient Database framework for comparative Genome Analyses using BLAST score Ratios" - was developed. EDGAR is designed to automatically perform genome comparisons in a high throughput approach. Comparative analyses for 582 genomes across 75 genus groups taken from the NCBI genomes database were conducted with the software and the results were integrated into an underlying database. To demonstrate a specific application case, we analyzed ten genomes of the bacterial genus Xanthomonas, for which phylogenetic studies were awkward due to divergent taxonomic systems. The resultant phylogeny EDGAR provided was consistent with outcomes from traditional approaches performed recently and moreover, it was possible to root each strain with unprecedented accuracy. CONCLUSION: EDGAR provides novel analysis features and significantly simplifies the comparative analysis of related genomes. The software supports a quick survey of evolutionary relationships and simplifies the process of obtaining new biological insights into the differential gene content of kindred genomes. Visualization features, like synteny plots or Venn diagrams, are offered to the scientific community through a web-based and therefore platform independent user interface http://edgar.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de, where the precomputed data sets can be browsed.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2105-10-154

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 47 references

Cited by

See all 411

Metadata

Authors
Blom, J., Albaum, S. P., Doppmeier, D., Pühler, A., Vorhölter, F.-J., Zakrzewski, M., & Goesmann, A.
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2009-05-20
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
154-154
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125119899
Cited by
411
References
47
FWCI
7.44
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: A software framework for the comparative analysis of prokaryotic genomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2105-10-154
The paper
Blom, J., Albaum, S. P., Doppmeier, D., Pühler, A., Vorhölter, F.-J., Zakrzewski, M., & Goesmann, A. (2009). EDGAR: A software framework for the comparative analysis of prokaryotic genomes. BMC Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-154

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.