The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benchmarking ortholog identification methods using functional genomics data
Open accessAbstract
Background: The transfer of functional annotations from model organism proteins to human proteins is one of the main applications of comparative genomics. Various methods are used to analyze cross-species orthologous relationships according to an operational definition of orthology. Often the definition of orthology is incorrectly interpreted as a prediction of proteins that are functionally equivalent across species, while in fact it only defines the existence of a common ancestor for a gene in different species. However, it has been demonstrated that orthologs often reveal significant functional similarity. Therefore, the quality of the orthology prediction is an important factor in the transfer of functional annotations (and other related information). To identify protein pairs with the highest possible functional similarity, it is important to qualify ortholog identification methods. Results: To measure the similarity in function of proteins from different species we used functional genomics data, such as expression data and protein interaction data. We tested several of the most popular ortholog identification methods. In general, we observed a sensitivity/selectivity trade-off: the functional similarity scores per orthologous pair of sequences become higher when the number of proteins included in the ortholog groups decreases. Conclusion: By combining the sensitivity and the selectivity into an overall score, we show that the InParanoid program is the best ortholog identification method in terms of identifying functionally equivalent proteins.
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
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
The Ensembl Automatic Gene Annotation System
Curwen, V., Eyras, E., Andrews, T. D., Clarke, L., Mongin, E., Searle, S. M. J., & Clamp, M. (2004) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.1858004 · Cited by 400
Cited by
An integrative approach to ortholog prediction for disease-focused and other functional studies
Hu, Y., Flockhart, I., Vinayagam, A., Bergwitz, C., Berger, B., Perrimon, N., & Mohr, S. E. (2011) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-357 · Cited by 848
eggNOG v4.0: nested orthology inference across 3686 organisms
Powell, S., Forslund, K., Szklarczyk, D., Trachana, K., Roth, A., Huerta-Cepas, J., Gabaldón, T., Rattei, T., Creevey, C., Kuhn, M., et al. (2014) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1253 · Cited by 652
Functional and evolutionary implications of gene orthology
Gabaldón, T., & Koonin, E. V. (2013) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3456 · Cited by 643
InParanoid 7: new algorithms and tools for eukaryotic orthology analysis
Ostlund, G., Schmitt, T., Forslund, K., Kostler, T., Messina, D. N., Roopra, S., Frings, O., & Sonnhammer, E. L. L. (2010) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkp931 · Cited by 623
InParanoid 8: orthology analysis between 273 proteomes, mostly eukaryotic
Sonnhammer, E. L. L., & Östlund, G. (2015) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gku1203 · Cited by 477
Metadata
- Authors
- Hulsen, T., Huynen, M. A., de Vlieg, J., & Groenen, P. M.
- Venue
- Genome Biology
- Published
- 2006-04-13
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- R31-R31
- ISSN
- 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
- 1474-760X
- OpenAlex
- W1485242531
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.91
- 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: Benchmarking ortholog identification methods using functional genomics data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/gb-2006-7-4-r31
- The paper
- Hulsen, T., Huynen, M. A., de Vlieg, J., & Groenen, P. M. (2006). Benchmarking ortholog identification methods using functional genomics data. Genome Biology. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2006-7-4-r31
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.