2006
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020075
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Integrative Method for Accurate Comparative Genome Mapping

Abstract: We present MAGIC, an integrative and accurate method for comparative genome mapping. Our method consists of two phases: preprocessing for identifying “maximal similar segments,” and mapping for clustering and classifying these segments. MAGIC's main novelty lies in its biologically intuitive clustering approach, which aims towards both calculating reorder-free segments and identifying orthologous segments. In the process, MAGIC efficiently handles ambiguities resulting from duplications that occurred before th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 89 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Methods for identifying orthologous markers and for constructing synteny blocks are numerous in the scientific literature, starting with blocks built from physical or genetic maps of the chromosomes [ 19 ], to conserved segments of genes or blocks grouping genomic markers from whole genomic alignments [ 20 - 30 ]. The method to refine breakpoints described in the previous section requires two properties of the synteny blocks.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Methods for identifying orthologous markers and for constructing synteny blocks are numerous in the scientific literature, starting with blocks built from physical or genetic maps of the chromosomes [ 19 ], to conserved segments of genes or blocks grouping genomic markers from whole genomic alignments [ 20 - 30 ]. The method to refine breakpoints described in the previous section requires two properties of the synteny blocks.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first conceptual definition to capture the gist of the problem might have been "positional ortholog" as articulated by (Koski et al 2001) and a little bit later by (Swidan et al 2006); a similar notion of "positional homolog" was proposed by (Bourque et al 2005) and (Burgetz et al 2006). Swidan et al remark that "positional orthologs are orthologs that have preserved their relative positioning or genomic contexts in the genomes," suggesting a criterion to assess positional orthology, namely context-the sequences of their flanking regions.…”
Section: Concepts Of One-to-one Orthologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[25]) to reveal their evolutionary history [26,27]. While several tools exist (LS-BSR [28], Magic[29], Mavid[30], Mauve [3133], MGA [34], M-GCAT [35], Mugsy [36], TBA [37], multi-LAGAN [38], PECAN [39]), multiple genome alignment remains a challenging task due to the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer [40,41], recombination, homoplasy, gene conversion, mobile genetic elements, pseudogenization, and convoluted orthology relationships [25]. In addition, the computational burden of multiple sequence alignment remains very high [42] despite recent progress [43].…”
Section: Rationalementioning
confidence: 99%