4.8 Article

KOMODO: a web tool for detecting and visualizing biased distribution of groups of homologous genes in monophyletic taxa

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 40, 期 W1, 页码 W491-W497

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks490

关键词

-

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. KEGG database, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (Embrapa)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The enrichment analysis is a standard procedure to interpret 'omics' experiments that generate large gene lists as outputs, such as transcriptomics and protemics. However, despite the huge success of enrichment analysis in these classes of experiments, there is a surprising lack of application of this methodology to survey other categories of large-scale biological data available. Here, we report Kegg Orthology enrichMent-Online DetectiOn (KOMODO), a web tool to systematically investigate groups of monophyletic genomes in order to detect significantly enriched groups of homologous genes in one taxon when compared with another. The results are displayed in their proper biochemical roles in a visual, explorative way, allowing users to easily formulate and investigate biological hypotheses regarding the taxonomical distribution of genomic elements. We validated KOMODO by analyzing portions of central carbon metabolism in two taxa extensively studied regarding their carbon metabolism profile (Enterobacteriaceae family and Lactobacillales order). Most enzymatic activities significantly biased were related to known key metabolic traits in these taxa, such as the distinct fates of pyruvate (the known tendency of lactate production in Lactobacillales and its complete oxidation in Enterobacteriaceae), demonstrating that KOMODO could detect biologically meaningful differences in the frequencies of shared genomic elements among taxa. KOMODO is freely available at http://komodotool.org.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据