Cited by 65Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFractal and DNA sequence analysisChromosomal and Genetic Variations

Simultaneous gene finding in multiple genomes

Open access
König, Stefanie, Romoth, Lars W., Gerischer, Lizzy, Stanke, Mario·2016·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: As the tree of life is populated with sequenced genomes ever more densely, the new challenge is the accurate and consistent annotation of entire clades of genomes. We address this problem with a new approach to comparative gene finding that takes a multiple genome alignment of closely related species and simultaneously predicts the location and structure of protein-coding genes in all input genomes, thereby exploiting negative selection and sequence conservation. The model prefers potential gene structures in the different genomes that are in agreement with each other, or—if not—where the exon gains and losses are plausible given the species tree. We formulate the multi-species gene finding problem as a binary labeling problem on a graph. The resulting optimization problem is NP hard, but can be efficiently approximated using a subgradient-based dual decomposition approach. Results: The proposed method was tested on whole-genome alignments of 12 vertebrate and 12 Drosophila species. The accuracy was evaluated for human, mouse and Drosophila melanogaster and compared to competing methods. Results suggest that our method is well-suited for annotation of (a large number of) genomes of closely related species within a clade, in particular, when RNA-Seq data are available for many of the genomes. The transfer of existing annotations from one genome to another via the genome alignment is more accurate than previous approaches that are based on protein-spliced alignments, when the genomes are at close to medium distances. Availability and implementation: The method is implemented in C ++ as part of Augustus and available open source at http://bioinf.uni-greifswald.de/augustus/. Contact: stefaniekoenig@ymail.com or mario.stanke@uni-greifswald.de Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw494

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Comparative genomics analyses (species-tree inference, comparative annotation, selection detection) require genome alignments.

    “Comparative genomics analyses, including species-tree inference7,8, comparative annotation9,10, and selection detection11,12, require genome alignments.”

    From Progressive Cactus is a multiple-genome aligner for the thousand-genome era (2020) · cites this paper as [10]

    This citation is attached to comparative annotation, not species-tree inference or selection detection. The Abstract says AUGUSTUS cgp requires a genome alignment, supporting the claim for this method. But the Conclusion (section 4) describes protein or transcript alignment as another way to transfer annotations, so the paper does not establish that comparative annotation generally requires genome alignments. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For six high-quality bat genomes, annotations integrating available transcriptomics data, ab initio gene predictions, aligned proteins from closely related bats, and comparative gene predictions contained 87.7% to 95.4% of the genes in the mammalian BUSCO odb10 set.

    “For the six bats, these annotations contained 87.7% to 95.4% of the genes in the mammalian BUSCO odb10 set (Fig. 3C, Table S9).”

    From Integrating gene annotation with orthology inference at scale (2023) · cites this paper as [25]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Inatsuki,T. et al. (2016) Prediction of gene structures from RNA-seq data using dual decomposition. IPSJ Trans. Bioinformatics, 9, 1-6.
  2. Komodakis,N. et al. (2011) MRF energy minimization and beyond via dual decomposition. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 33, 531-552.
  3. Rush,A. et al. (2010). On dual decomposition and linear programming relax- ations for natural language processing. In: Proceedings of EMNLP. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Stroudsburg, PA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
König, S., Romoth, L. W., Gerischer, L., & Stanke, M.
Affiliations
Universität Greifswald (DE)
Corresponding author
  • König, Stefanie
  • Stanke, Mario
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2016-07-27
Volume
32
Issue
22
Pages
3388-3395
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W1956454952
Cited by
65
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • the German National Academic Foundation
  • the DFG Research Unit (1234)
  • the German Research Foundation (GRK 1870/01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
multiple genome alignment, protein-coding genes, species tree, annotation transfer, closely related species, Augustus
MeSH terms
Animals, Drosophila melanogaster, Exons, Humans, Sequence Alignment, Genome, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review