↓ Skip to main content

Locating rearrangement events in a phylogeny based on highly fragmented assemblies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
514 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Locating rearrangement events in a phylogeny based on highly fragmented assemblies
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-2294-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chunfang Zheng, David Sankoff

Abstract

The inference of genome rearrangement operations requires complete genome assemblies as input data, since a rearrangement can involve an arbitrarily large proportion of one or more chromosomes. Most genome sequence projects, especially those on non-model organisms for which no physical map exists, produce very fragmented assembles, so that a rearranged fragment may be impossible to identify because its two endpoints are on different scaffolds. However, breakpoints are easily identified, as long as they do not coincide with scaffold ends. For the phylogenetic context, in comparing a fragmented assembly with a number of complete assemblies, certain combinatorial constraints on breakpoints can be derived. We ask to what extent we can use breakpoint data between a fragmented genome and a number of complete genomes to recover all the arrangements in a phylogeny. We simulate genomic evolution via chromosomal inversion, fragmenting one of the genomes into a large number of scaffolds to represent the incompleteness of assembly. We identify all the breakpoints between this genome and the remainder. We devise an algorithm which takes these breakpoints into account in trying to determine on which branch of the phylogeny a rearrangement event occurred. We present an analysis of the dependence of recovery rates on scaffold size and rearrangement rate, and show that the true tree, the one on which the rearrangement simulation was performed, tends to be most parsimonious in estimating the number of true events inferred. It is somewhat surprising that the breakpoints identified just between the fragmented genome and each of the others suffice to recover most of the rearrangements produced by the simulations. This holds even in parts of the phylogeny disjoint from the lineage of the fragmented genome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 46%
Student > Master 4 31%
Researcher 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,453,089
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#5,002
of 10,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,204
of 394,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#114
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,655 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.