Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Molecular Biology›Consensus Sequence
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Consensus Sequence

Molecular Biology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

A theoretical representative nucleotide or amino acid sequence in which each nucleotide or amino acid is the one which occurs most frequently at that site in the different sequences which occur in nature.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (878 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

A theoretical representative nucleotide or amino acid sequence in which each nucleotide or amino acid is the one which occurs most frequently at that site in the different sequences which occur in nature. The phrase also refers to an actual sequence which approximates the theoretical consensus. A known conserved sequence set is represented by a consensus sequence. Commonly observed supersecondary protein structures (amino acid motifs) are often formed by conserved sequences.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Consensus Sequences; Sequence, Consensus; Sequences, Consensus.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Conserved Sequence
Narrower topics
Position-Specific Scoring Matrices
See also
Conserved Sequence; Amino Acid Motifs

Related concepts

  • Conserved Sequence
  • Amino Acid Motifs

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 10,993 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Consensus Sequence” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 344 of them (3.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 5,347 records.

Reviews account for 608 records (5.5%) and meta-analyses for 19. Randomized controlled trials number 4 (0.0%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 5,347 records; 2000-2009: 3,395 records; 2010-2019: 1,907 records; 2020 onward: 344 records5,347through 19993,3952000-20091,9072010-20193442020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19995,347
2000-20093,395
2010-20191,907
2020 onward344
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 5.5 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.2 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 0.0 percentReviews5.5% (608)Meta-analyses0.2% (19)Randomized controlled trials0.0% (4)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 10,993 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews6085.5%
Meta-analyses190.2%
Randomized controlled trials40.0%

Method: PubMed query "Consensus Sequence"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in molecular biology

Molecular biology establishes mechanisms through controlled experiments, often in simplified systems such as purified proteins, cultured cells or model organisms. Such work can show what is possible in a defined system, but whether a pathway matters in a whole organism or in human disease needs further evidence. Check the experimental system, whether findings were reproduced by independent groups, and whether the authors tested the mechanism directly or inferred it from correlation.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Creating a honey bee consensus gene set
Elsik CG, Mackey AJ, Reese JT, Milshina NV, Roos DS, Weinstock GM
2007Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
258cc by
PMID 17241472 · DOI · PMC1839126
Targeted enrichment beyond the consensus coding DNA sequence exome reveals exons with higher variant densities
Bainbridge MN, Wang M, Wu Y, Newsham I, Muzny DM, Jefferies JL, et al.
2011Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
181cc by
PMID 21787409 · DOI · PMC3218830
Prediction of ubiquitination sites by using the composition of k-spaced amino acid pairs
Chen Z, Chen YZ, Wang XF, Wang C, Yan RX, Zhang Z
2011Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
158cc by
PMID 21829559 · DOI · PMC3146527
Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) network proposal for a consensus gene panel for pan-cancer sequencing: a Delphi methodology
Phillips R, Basu B, Butt Z, Beloueche M, Cook N, Crabb SJ, et al.
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
0cc by
PMID 41206382 · DOI · PMC12820137

Creating a honey bee consensus gene set [1]

Research article Elsik CG, Mackey AJ, Reese JT, Milshina NV, Roos DS, Weinstock GM · · 2007 · cited 258 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundWe wished to produce a single reference gene set for honey bee (Apis mellifera).
Closing excerpt
GLEAN proved to be an effective method to combine gene lists into a single reference set.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (236 words)

BackgroundWe wished to produce a single reference gene set for honey bee (Apis mellifera). Our motivation was twofold. First, we wished to obtain an improved set of gene models with increased coverage of known genes, while maintaining gene model quality. Second, we wished to provide a single official gene list that the research community could further utilize for consistent and comparable analyses and functional annotation.ResultsWe created a consensus gene set for honey bee (Apis mellifera) using GLEAN, a new algorithm that uses latent class analysis to automatically combine disparate gene prediction evidence in the absence of known genes. The consensus gene models had increased representation of honey bee genes without sacrificing quality compared with any one of the input gene predictions. When compared with manually annotated gold standards, the consensus set of gene models was similar or superior in quality to each of the input sets.ConclusionMost eukaryotic genome projects produce multiple gene sets because of the variety of gene prediction programs. Each of the gene prediction programs has strengths and weaknesses, and so the multiplicity of gene sets offers users a more comprehensive collection of genes to use than is available from a single program. On the other hand, the availability of multiple gene sets is also a cause for uncertainty among users as regards which set they should use. GLEAN proved to be an effective method to combine gene lists into a single reference set.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 17241472 · DOI · PMC1839126

Targeted enrichment beyond the consensus coding DNA sequence exome reveals exons with higher variant densities [2]

Research article Bainbridge MN, Wang M, Wu Y, Newsham I, Muzny DM, Jefferies JL, et al. · · 2011 · cited 181 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundEnrichment of loci by DNA hybridization-capture, followed by high-throughput sequencing, is an important tool in modern genetics.
Closing excerpt
5-times higher than that observed in the CCDS.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (246 words)

BackgroundEnrichment of loci by DNA hybridization-capture, followed by high-throughput sequencing, is an important tool in modern genetics. Currently, the most common targets for enrichment are the protein coding exons represented by the consensus coding DNA sequence (CCDS). The CCDS, however, excludes many actual or computationally predicted coding exons present in other databases, such as RefSeq and Vega, and non-coding functional elements such as untranslated and regulatory regions. The number of variants per base pair (variant density) and our ability to interrogate regions outside of the CCDS regions is consequently less well understood.ResultsWe examine capture sequence data from outside of the CCDS regions and find that extremes of GC content that are present in different subregions of the genome can reduce the local capture sequence coverage to less than 50% relative to the CCDS. This effect is due to biases inherent in both the Illumina and SOLiD sequencing platforms that are exacerbated by the capture process. Interestingly, for two subregion types, microRNA and predicted exons, the capture process yields higher than expected coverage when compared to whole genome sequencing. Lastly, we examine the variation present in non-CCDS regions and find that predicted exons, as well as exonic regions specific to RefSeq and Vega, show much higher variant densities than the CCDS.ConclusionsWe show that regions outside of the CCDS perform less efficiently in capture sequence experiments. Further, we show that the variant density in computationally predicted exons is more than 2.5-times higher than that observed in the CCDS.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 21787409 · DOI · PMC3218830

Prediction of ubiquitination sites by using the composition of k-spaced amino acid pairs [3]

Research article Chen Z, Chen YZ, Wang XF, Wang C, Yan RX, Zhang Z · · 2011 · cited 158 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
As one of the most important reversible protein post-translation modifications, ubiquitination has been reported to be involved in lots of biological processes and closely implicated with various diseases.
Closing excerpt
To ensure a reasonable prediction performance, the application of the current CKSAAP_UbSite should be limited to the proteome of yeast.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (221 words)

As one of the most important reversible protein post-translation modifications, ubiquitination has been reported to be involved in lots of biological processes and closely implicated with various diseases. To fully decipher the molecular mechanisms of ubiquitination-related biological processes, an initial but crucial step is the recognition of ubiquitylated substrates and the corresponding ubiquitination sites. Here, a new bioinformatics tool named CKSAAP_UbSite was developed to predict ubiquitination sites from protein sequences. With the assistance of Support Vector Machine (SVM), the highlight of CKSAAP_UbSite is to employ the composition of k-spaced amino acid pairs surrounding a query site (i.e. any lysine in a query sequence) as input. When trained and tested in the dataset of yeast ubiquitination sites (Radivojac et al, Proteins, 2010, 78: 365-380), a 100-fold cross-validation on a 1∶1 ratio of positive and negative samples revealed that the accuracy and MCC of CKSAAP_UbSite reached 73.40% and 0.4694, respectively. The proposed CKSAAP_UbSite has also been intensively benchmarked to exhibit better performance than some existing predictors, suggesting that it can be served as a useful tool to the community. Currently, CKSAAP_UbSite is freely accessible at http://protein.cau.edu.cn/cksaap_ubsite/. Moreover, we also found that the sequence patterns around ubiquitination sites are not conserved across different species. To ensure a reasonable prediction performance, the application of the current CKSAAP_UbSite should be limited to the proteome of yeast.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 21829559 · DOI · PMC3146527

Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) network proposal for a consensus gene panel for pan-cancer sequencing: a Delphi methodology [4]

Research article Phillips R, Basu B, Butt Z, Beloueche M, Cook N, Crabb SJ, et al. · · 2026

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThe Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) Network supports UK-wide access to experimental cancer therapies, many of which require specific genomic alterations.
Closing excerpt
It supports harmonised diagnostics and could improve patient access to personalised therapies and research trials across clinical and NHS settings.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (175 words)

BackgroundThe Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) Network supports UK-wide access to experimental cancer therapies, many of which require specific genomic alterations. This study aimed to develop expert consensus on essential genes for a pan-cancer sequencing panel, involving subject matter experts (SMEs) from the ECMC Network and the pharmaceutical industry.MethodsA pilot with 8 SMEs graded 526 genes, refining the list to 210. A three-round Delphi process was then used, with SMEs iteratively evaluating each gene. In the final round, SMEs also assessed the inclusion of tumour mutational burden (TMB), microsatellite instability (MSI), and mutation types (structural variations, copy number variations, and/or fusions).ResultsConsensus was reached on a final panel of 99 genes applicable across multiple cancers. High agreement was also achieved for including TMB, MSI, and screening for structural variations, copy number variants, and fusions. The panel is intended for both adult and paediatric tumour types.ConclusionsThis consensus-based gene panel offers a standardised approach to pan-cancer genomic screening. It supports harmonised diagnostics and could improve patient access to personalised therapies and research trials across clinical and NHS settings.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41206382 · DOI · PMC12820137

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Integration of oxygen signaling at the consensus HRE [5]
    Wenger RH, Stiehl DP, Camenisch G · Sci STKE · 2005 · cited 760 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article (S)NO signals: translocation, regulation, and a consensus motif [6]
    Stamler JS, Toone EJ, Lipton SA, Sucher NJ · Neuron · 1997 · cited 530 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article BH3-only proteins in apoptosis and beyond: an overview [7]
    Lomonosova E, Chinnadurai G · Oncogene · 2008 · cited 351 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Right Versus Left Colon Cancer Biology: Integrating the Consensus Molecular Subtypes [8]
    Lee MS, Menter DG, Kopetz S · J Natl Compr Canc Netw · 2017 · cited 295 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Context sequences of translation initiation codon in plants [9]
    Joshi CP, Zhou H, Huang X, Chiang VL · Plant Mol Biol · 1997 · cited 275 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The functions and consensus motifs of nine types of peptide segments that form different types of nucleotide-binding sites [10]
    Traut TW · Eur J Biochem · 1994 · cited 259 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Elsik CG, Mackey AJ, Reese JT, Milshina NV, Roos DS, Weinstock GM. Creating a honey bee consensus gene set. . 2007. PMID 17241472 · DOI · PMC1839126
  2. Bainbridge MN, Wang M, Wu Y, Newsham I, Muzny DM, Jefferies JL, et al.. Targeted enrichment beyond the consensus coding DNA sequence exome reveals exons with higher variant densities. . 2011. PMID 21787409 · DOI · PMC3218830
  3. Chen Z, Chen YZ, Wang XF, Wang C, Yan RX, Zhang Z. Prediction of ubiquitination sites by using the composition of k-spaced amino acid pairs. . 2011. PMID 21829559 · DOI · PMC3146527
  4. Phillips R, Basu B, Butt Z, Beloueche M, Cook N, Crabb SJ, et al.. Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) network proposal for a consensus gene panel for pan-cancer sequencing: a Delphi methodology. . 2026. PMID 41206382 · DOI · PMC12820137
  5. Wenger RH, Stiehl DP, Camenisch G. Integration of oxygen signaling at the consensus HRE. Sci STKE. 2005. PMID 16234508 · DOI
  6. Stamler JS, Toone EJ, Lipton SA, Sucher NJ. (S)NO signals: translocation, regulation, and a consensus motif. Neuron. 1997. PMID 9182795 · DOI
  7. Lomonosova E, Chinnadurai G. BH3-only proteins in apoptosis and beyond: an overview. Oncogene. 2008. PMID 19641503 · DOI · PMC2928556
  8. Lee MS, Menter DG, Kopetz S. Right Versus Left Colon Cancer Biology: Integrating the Consensus Molecular Subtypes. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017. PMID 28275039 · DOI
  9. Joshi CP, Zhou H, Huang X, Chiang VL. Context sequences of translation initiation codon in plants. Plant Mol Biol. 1997. PMID 9426620 · DOI
  10. Traut TW. The functions and consensus motifs of nine types of peptide segments that form different types of nucleotide-binding sites. Eur J Biochem. 1994. PMID 8200357 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Conserved SequenceMolecular Biology
  • Amino Acid SequenceMolecular Biology
  • Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic RepeatsMolecular Biology
  • Binding SitesMolecular Biology
  • Catalytic DomainMolecular Biology
  • CpG IslandsMolecular Biology

All 100 articles in Molecular Biology →

At a glance

10,993
PubMed records on this heading
3%
published since 2020
608
review articles
4
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Conserved SequenceMolecular Biology
  • Amino Acid SequenceMolecular Biology
  • Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic RepeatsMolecular Biology
  • Binding SitesMolecular Biology
  • Catalytic DomainMolecular Biology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support