This is where KiNext comes into the picture. Introduced in a 2024 study published in BMC Bioinformatics, KiNext is a computational workflow designed to identify and classify protein kinases from predicted protein sequences. Instead of relying on a single search method, it brings together several approaches, including Hidden Markov Models, sequence alignment, phylogenetic analysis, and structural comparison.

The search begins with a simple question: does a protein contain the characteristics of a kinase? Protein kinases can change considerably during evolution, but important regions of their sequences often retain recognizable patterns. KiNext uses Hidden Markov Models, or HMMs, to detect these patterns. An HMM does not require a protein to be an exact match to a known kinase. Instead, it looks for a statistical sequence signature associated with kinase proteins, making it possible to detect more distant candidates.

Once potential kinases are identified, KiNext takes the analysis further. It distinguishes conventional eukaryotic protein kinases from atypical protein kinases and then attempts to classify them into different kinase groups and families. This distinction is important because simply identifying a protein as a kinase does not tell the complete story. Different kinase families can have very different evolutionary histories and biological functions.

The next stage brings evolution into the picture. KiNext can align kinase sequences and construct phylogenetic trees, allowing researchers to examine how newly identified proteins are related to previously characterized kinases. When sequence evidence alone is difficult to interpret, structural information can provide another clue. The workflow can incorporate AlphaFold-predicted structures and Foldseek-based structural comparisons to investigate whether an unusual protein resembles known kinase structures.

The researchers tested KiNext using two very different organisms: the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, and the green alga Ostreococcus tauri. In C. gigas, KiNext recovered previously reported kinases while identifying additional candidates. Structural analysis provided further evidence for many of the newly detected proteins. In O. tauri, the workflow similarly recovered most previously reported kinases and identified additional candidates while refining some of their classifications.

What makes KiNext particularly interesting is not just its ability to find kinases, but how the entire analysis is organized. The workflow uses Nextflow, allowing the different computational steps to be connected into a reproducible pipeline. Containers can also help manage software dependencies, making it easier to run the workflow across different computing environments.

This reproducibility becomes increasingly important as the number of available genomes continues to grow. A researcher studying one organism may be able to perform an analysis manually, but repeating the same process across hundreds or thousands of genomes quickly becomes impractical. A standardized workflow provides a way to perform the analysis consistently while keeping track of how the results were generated.

At its core, KiNext demonstrates a broader change taking place in modern genomics. Sequencing a genome provides an enormous amount of information, but the real scientific challenge begins afterward: understanding what all those sequences mean. Protein kinases are only one part of this larger puzzle, yet they are particularly important because they act as molecular switches throughout the cell.

By combining sequence profiles, evolutionary analysis, and structural evidence within a reproducible computational framework, KiNext provides researchers with a systematic way to uncover these molecular switches. Its real value lies not only in finding more kinases, but in making the process scalable, repeatable, and easier to apply to new genomes.

As genome sequencing continues to expand across the tree of life, tools such as KiNext can help turn enormous collections of protein sequences into meaningful biological stories—one kinase at a time.

Read more about it @

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12859-024-05953-w

http://bioinformaticsonline.com/videolist/watch/19555/a-3d-map-of-the-human-genome

Researchers have been working to determine how cells regulate gene expression for nearly as long as we’ve known about DNA. How, for example, do nerve cells know to turn off only nerve cell genes and turn off bone cell genes? DNA folding loops are part of the answer. This research team, which published their findings in a paper in Cell http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674%2814%2901497-4 , found that the number of loops is much lower than expected. There are only 10,000 loops instead of the predicted millions, and they form on/off switches in DNA.

More at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-12/ru-3mr121114.php

Reference http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674%2814%2901497-4

There are Neanderthal bones. Denisovan remains. Fossils from ancient relatives of our species. Each specimen gives us another piece of the story of how Homo sapiens came to be.

But now imagine that one of the most important characters in that story has left behind no fossil, no skull, no bone, and no genome.

Nothing that a paleontologist could put behind glass.

And yet, somehow, that ancient population is still speaking.

It is speaking through us.

A fascinating new study published in Science (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aef8874?) introduces a computational method called TRACE, which allows scientists to search modern human genomes for genetic traces of ancient populations that have never been directly identified.

For years, scientists have known that our ancestors interacted with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Their DNA still survives in modern human populations. But these may not have been the only ancient humans who crossed paths with our ancestors.

Using TRACE, researchers found evidence of an unknown archaic population that contributed DNA to the ancestors of modern humans before humans spread beyond Africa.

Even more surprisingly, they found evidence of a much older lineage—possibly around 1.8 million years old—whose genetic legacy may have reached some modern humans indirectly through Denisovans.

The extraordinary part is that researchers did not need DNA from these mysterious populations to detect them. Instead, they studied the ancestry of modern genomes and looked for genetic patterns that revealed unusually ancient branches of our family history.

It is almost like finding the footprints of someone who disappeared thousands of years ago—without ever finding the person themselves.

These discoveries suggest that human evolution was far more complicated than a simple family tree. Ancient human populations repeatedly separated, migrated, met and exchanged genes. Some eventually disappeared, but pieces of their genetic legacy survived.

And that means our DNA is more than a biological instruction manual.

It is also an archive of human history.

Some of the people recorded in that archive may never have a name or a fossil. But thanks to methods like TRACE, their genetic echoes are finally becoming visible.

The next big discovery about our ancient past may not come from a fossil in the ground.

It may already be inside us.

Reference: Zhang et al., “Recovering signatures of archaic hominin introgression using ancestral recombination graphs,” Science (2026), DOI: 10.1126/science.aef8874. Detail paper @ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aef8874?

The TRACE repository (https://github.com/YulinZhang9806/trace) contains the Python package and command-line tools used to infer archaic admixture tracts from ancestral recombination graphs.

https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/chromoMap/index.html

Address of the bookmark: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/codialab/GFAffix

It takes as an input a set of genomes represented as sequences of genes (or synteny blocks) and produces such sequences for ancestral genomes at the internal nodes of the phylogenetic tree.

The phylogenetic tree may be also specified completely or partially, in the latter case MGRA can reconstruct conserved ancestral regions (CARs) of the ancestral genome of interest.

Since version 2 MGRA supports gene insertion and deletions in addition to genome rearrangements and allows the input genomes to have different gene content.

It also can reconstruct most plausible phylogenetic tree based on the rearrangement characters.

Address of the bookmark: http://mgra.cblab.org/

Once a query gene has been entered, it is displayed in its genomic context in parallel to the genomic context of all its orthologous and paralogous copies in all the other sequenced metazoan genomes. Moreover, Genomicus stores and displays the predicted ancestral genome structure in all the ancestral species within the phylogenetic range of interest.

All the data on extant species displayed in this browser are from Ensembl.

Address of the bookmark: http://genomicus.biologie.ens.fr/genomicus-90.01/cgi-bin/search.pl

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/reubwn/hgt

Address of the bookmark: https://sourceforge.net/projects/ksnp/files/