2010
DOI: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-2-r16
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

2× genomes - depth does matter

Abstract: The use of low coverage genomes in comparative evolutionary analyses skews estimates of gene gains and losses.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
64
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
3
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, keeping the orthogroup topology fixed by requiring one ortholog to be present for every species listed in Supplemental Table S1 also proved problematic because this resulted in a drastic drop of the total number of recovered orthogroups, since most homeologs had to be discarded because orthologs could not be found in every other plant species. This is probably due to both species-specific ortholog loss and problems with orthology-detection performance, since the latter decreases together with genome annotation quality, especially over large evolutionary distances (Trachana et al 2011), and many plant genomes have only been sequenced at relatively low coverage (Milinkovitch et al 2010).…”
Section: Orthogroup Constructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, keeping the orthogroup topology fixed by requiring one ortholog to be present for every species listed in Supplemental Table S1 also proved problematic because this resulted in a drastic drop of the total number of recovered orthogroups, since most homeologs had to be discarded because orthologs could not be found in every other plant species. This is probably due to both species-specific ortholog loss and problems with orthology-detection performance, since the latter decreases together with genome annotation quality, especially over large evolutionary distances (Trachana et al 2011), and many plant genomes have only been sequenced at relatively low coverage (Milinkovitch et al 2010).…”
Section: Orthogroup Constructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It communicates with clients (in boxes), each one in charge of one or more gene families, for which they search the gene tree maximizing mammalian species with widely different sequence coverages (Supplemental Table S1). Genomes with low coverage share by chance a number of unsequenced or unannotated genes, making this data set challenging for studying genomic evolution (Milinkovitch et al 2010). We introduced a correction to account for genome coverage to prevent PHYLDOG from interpreting these artifactual ''shared losses'' as a signal for clustering low-coverage genomes together in the species tree.…”
Section: Reconstructing the Evolutionary History Of Mammalian Genomesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also calculated for each relevant clade of vertebrates the number of RAREs that are conserved in all the members of these clades. Although these data can be influenced by the coverage of the studied genome (34), this analysis raised three interesting conclusions. (i) Overall, human RAREs are less conserved in rodents than in other mammals.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%