Paper detail

Weighted genomic distance can hardly impose a bound on the proportion of transpositions

Genomic distance between two genomes, i.e., the smallest number of genome rearrangements required to transform one genome into the other, is often used as a measure of evolutionary closeness of the genomes in comparative genomics studies. However, in models that include rearrangements of significantly different "power" such as reversals (that are "weak" and most frequent rearrangements) and transpositions (that are more "powerful" but rare), the genomic distance typically corresponds to a transformation with a large proportion of transpositions, which is not biologically adequate. Weighted genomic distance is a traditional approach to bounding the proportion of transpositions by assigning them a relative weight α > 1. A number of previous studies addressed the problem of computing weighted genomic distance with α \leq 2. Employing the model of multi-break rearrangements on circular genomes, that captures both reversals (modelled as 2-breaks) and transpositions (modelled as 3-breaks), we prove that for α \in (1,2], a minimum-weight transformation may entirely consist of transpositions, implying that the corresponding weighted genomic distance does not actually achieve its purpose of bounding the proportion of transpositions. We further prove that for α \in (1,2), the minimum-weight transformations do not depend on a particular choice of α from this interval. We give a complete characterization of such transformations and show that they coincide with the transformations that at the same time have the shortest length and make the smallest number of breakages in the genomes. Our results also provide a theoretical foundation for the empirical observation that for α < 2, transpositions are favored over reversals in the minimum-weight transformations.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.