2016
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw255
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

EDGAR 2.0: an enhanced software platform for comparative gene content analyses

Abstract: 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 init… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
346
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 334 publications
(351 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
346
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This pipeline uses Prodigal [26], RNAMMER [27] and ARAGORN [28] for the prediction of coding sequences, rRNAs, and tRNAs. Functional annotation is realized by a comparison of predicted coding sequences against a database of conserved orthologous groups of the genus Xanthomonas identified by the EDGAR software [29]. Genes that could not be annotated by this approach were compared to a collection of sequence databases comprising Swissprot, Refseq, and Pfam-A [3032].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This pipeline uses Prodigal [26], RNAMMER [27] and ARAGORN [28] for the prediction of coding sequences, rRNAs, and tRNAs. Functional annotation is realized by a comparison of predicted coding sequences against a database of conserved orthologous groups of the genus Xanthomonas identified by the EDGAR software [29]. Genes that could not be annotated by this approach were compared to a collection of sequence databases comprising Swissprot, Refseq, and Pfam-A [3032].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comparative genome analysis was performed using EDGAR 2.0 [29]. The platform employs a bit score related cutoff value, which is generated based on BLAST score ratio values (SRVs) to identify orthologous genes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1, b) [102]. A new version of EDGAR was published recently [103]. The main focus of the analysis of Xanthomonas genomes is usually on virulence factors [66].…”
Section: Genomic Basicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is particularly useful for RNA-Seq experiments. (b) Comparative genomics is facilitated by EDGAR software [102,103]. Despite being a stand-alone application, it is able to communicate with the well-established genome annotation software GenDB (c) [77], which can be complemented with SAMS for the analysis of shorter DNA sequence data [269].…”
Section: Genomic Basicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…BLAST ring images were generated using BRIG (Alikhan et al 2011). Genome comparisons were performed in EDGAR (Blom et al 2009;Blom et al 2016). This Whole Genome Shotgun project has been deposited at DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under the accession JZLL00000000 (Glaeser et al 2016).…”
Section: Analysis Of the Rrf4 Genomementioning
confidence: 99%