Cited by 27Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGenome Rearrangement Algorithms

Accurate prediction of orthologs in the presence of divergence after duplication

Open access
Lafond, Manuel, Meghdari Miardan, Mona, Sankoff, David·2018·Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Motivation: When gene duplication occurs, one of the copies may become free of selective pressure and evolve at an accelerated pace. This has important consequences on the prediction of orthology relationships, since two orthologous genes separated by divergence after duplication may differ in both sequence and function. In this work, we make the distinction between the primary orthologs, which have not been affected by accelerated mutation rates on their evolutionary path, and the secondary orthologs, which have. Similarity-based prediction methods will tend to miss secondary orthologs, whereas phylogeny-based methods cannot separate primary and secondary orthologs. However, both types of orthology have applications in important areas such as gene function prediction and phylogenetic reconstruction, motivating the need for methods that can distinguish the two types. Results: We formalize the notion of divergence after duplication and provide a theoretical basis for the inference of primary and secondary orthologs. We then put these ideas to practice with the Hybrid Prediction of Paralogs and Orthologs (HyPPO) framework, which combines ideas from both similarity and phylogeny approaches. We apply our method to simulated and empirical datasets and show that we achieve superior accuracy in predicting primary orthologs, secondary orthologs and paralogs. Availability and implementation: HyPPO is a modular framework with a core developed in Python and is provided with a variety of C++ modules. The source code is available at https://github.com/manuellafond/HyPPO. 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/bty242

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?

  • Score-based estimates of phylogenetic relationships between genes are confounded by multiple factors, for example variable sequence evolution rates between genes frequently lead to both false-positive and false-negative errors.

    “However, such score-based estimates of the phylogenetic relationship between genes are confounded by multiple factors. For example, variable sequence evolution rates between genes frequently lead to both false-positive and false-negative errors [14, 15] (Fig. 1).”

    From OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics (2019) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) explains that accelerated mutation after duplication can make orthologous genes dissimilar, so similarity-based methods may fail to identify them—a false negative. It does not establish that variable evolutionary rates frequently cause false-positive errors as well, or support that frequency claim. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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: 46

  1. Altenhoff A.M. et al (2012) Resolving the ortholog conjecture: orthologs tend to be weakly, but significantly, more similar in function than paralogs. PLoS Comput. Biol., 8, e1002514. 22615551 PMC3355068
  2. Altenhoff A.M., Dessimoz C. (2012) Inferring orthology and paralogy. Methods Mol. Biol., 855, 259– 279. 22407712
  3. Altenhoff A.M. et al (2013) Inferring hierarchical orthologous groups from orthologous gene pairs. PLoS One, 8, e53786. 23342000 PMC3544860
  4. Cardoso-Moreira M. et al (2016) Evidence for the fixation of gene duplications by positive selection in drosophila. Genome Res., 26, 787– 798. 27197209 PMC4889967
  5. Chen X., Zhang J. (2012) The ortholog conjecture is untestable by the current gene ontology but is supported by rna sequencing data. PLoS Comput. Biol., 8, e1002784. 23209392 PMC3510086
  6. Dondi R. et al (2017a) Approximating the correction of weighted and unweighted orthology and paralogy relations. Algorithms Mol. Biol., 12, 4. 28293276 PMC5346272
  7. Dondi R. et al (2017b) Orthology correction for gene tree reconstruction: Theoretical and experimental results. Proc. Comput. Sci., 108, 1115– 1124.
  8. Doyle M.A. et al (2010) Drug target prediction and prioritization: using orthology to predict essentiality in parasite genomes. BMC Genomics, 11, 222. 20361874 PMC2867826
  9. Doyon J.-P. et al (2011) Models, algorithms and programs for phylogeny reconciliation. Brief. Bioinformatics, 12, 392. 21949266
  10. Emms D.M., Kelly S. (2015) Orthofinder: solving fundamental biases in whole genome comparisons dramatically improves orthogroup inference accuracy. Genome Biol., 16, 157. 26243257 PMC4531804
  11. Fitch W.M. (2000) Homology: a personal view on some of the problems. Trends Genet., 16, 227– 231. 10782117
  12. Fletcher W., Yang Z. (2009) Indelible: a flexible simulator of biological sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol., 26, 1879– 1888. 19423664 PMC2712615
  13. Gabaldón T., Koonin E.V. (2013) Functional and evolutionary implications of gene orthology. Nat. Rev. Genet., 14, 360– 366. 23552219 PMC5877793
  14. Hartung S., Hoos H.H. (2015). Programming by optimisation meets parameterised algorithmics: a case study for cluster editing. In International Conference on Learning and Intelligent Optimization, pp. 43–58. Springer.
  15. Hellmuth M. et al (2013) Orthology relations, symbolic ultrametrics, and cographs. J. Math. Biol., 66, 399– 420. 22456957
  16. Hellmuth M. et al (2015) Phylogenomics with paralogs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA, 112, 2058– 2063. 25646426 PMC4343152
  17. Innan H., Kondrashov F. (2010) The evolution of gene duplications: classifying and distinguishing between models. Nat. Rev. Genet., 11, 97. 20051986
  18. Jones M. et al (2016) On the consistency of orthology relationships. BMC Bioinformatics, 17, 416. 28185580 PMC5123252
  19. Jordan I.K. et al (2004) Duplicated genes evolve slower than singletons despite the initial rate increase. BMC Evol. Biol., 4, 1– 22. 15238160 PMC481058
  20. Jothi R. et al (2006) Coco-cl: hierarchical clustering of homology relations based on evolutionary correlations. Bioinformatics, 22, 779– 788. 16434444 PMC1620014
  21. Katoh K. et al (2002) Mafft: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res., 30, 3059– 3066. 12136088 PMC135756
  22. Koonin E.V. (2005) Orthologs, paralogs, and evolutionary genomics. Ann. Rev. Genet., 39, 309– 338. 16285863
  23. Kristensen D.M. et al (2011) Computational methods for gene orthology inference. Brief. Bioinformatics, 12, 379– 391. PMC3178053 21690100
  24. Lafond M. et al (2016) The link between orthology relations and gene trees: a correction perspective. Algorithms Mol. Biol., 11, 4. 27087831 PMC4833969
  25. Lafond M., El-Mabrouk N. (2014) Orthology and paralogy constraints: satisfiability and consistency. BMC Genomics, 15, S12. PMC4240720 25572629
  26. Lechner M. et al (2011) Proteinortho: detection of (co-) orthologs in large-scale analysis. BMC Bioinformatics, 12, 124. 21526987 PMC3114741
  27. Li L. et al (2003) Orthomcl: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. Genome Res., 13, 2178– 2189. 12952885 PMC403725
  28. Lynch M., Conery J.S. (2000) The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science, 290, 1151– 1155. 11073452
  29. Mallo D. et al (2016) Simphy: phylogenomic simulation of gene, locus, and species trees. Syst. Biol., 65, 334– 344. 26526427 PMC4748750
  30. Mirarab S. et al (2014) Astral: genome-scale coalescent-based species tree estimation. Bioinformatics, 30, i541– i548. 25161245 PMC4147915
  31. Nehrt N.L. et al (2011) Testing the ortholog conjecture with comparative functional genomic data from mammals. PLoS Comput. Biol., 7, e1002073. 21695233 PMC3111532
  32. O’Brien K.P. et al (2004) Inparanoid: a comprehensive database of eukaryotic orthologs. Nucleic Acids Res., 33, D476. PMC540061 15608241
  33. Powell S. et al (2012) eggnog v3. 0: orthologous groups covering 1133 organisms at 41 different taxonomic ranges. Nucleic Acids Res., 40, D284. 22096231 PMC3245133
  34. Roth A.C. et al (2008) Algorithm of oma for large-scale orthology inference. BMC Bioinformatics, 9, 518. 19055798 PMC2639434
  35. Soria P.S. et al (2014) Functional divergence for every paralog. Mol. Biol. Evol., 31, 984– 992. 24451325
  36. Stolzer M. et al (2012) Inferring duplications, losses, transfers and incomplete lineage sorting with nonbinary species trees. Bioinformatics, 28, i409– i415. 22962460 PMC3436813
  37. Studer R.A., Robinson-Rechavi M. (2009) How confident can we be that orthologs are similar, but paralogs differ? Trends Genet., 25, 210– 216. 19368988
  38. Swenson K.M., El-Mabrouk N. (2012) Gene trees and species trees: irreconcilable differences. BMC Bioinformatics, 13, S15. PMC3526438 23281654
  39. Tatusov R.L. et al (2003) The cog database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics, 4, 41. 12969510 PMC222959
  40. Thomas P.D. et al (2012) On the use of gene ontology annotations to assess functional similarity among orthologs and paralogs: a short report. PLoS Comput. Biol., 8, e1002386. 22359495 PMC3280971
  41. Train C.-M. et al (2017) Orthologous matrix (oma) algorithm 2.0: more robust to asymmetric evolutionary rates and more scalable hierarchical orthologous group inference. Bioinformatics, 33, i75– i82. 28881964 PMC5870696
  42. Ullah I. et al (2015) Integrating sequence evolution into probabilistic orthology analysis. Syst. Biol., 64, 969– 982. 26130236
  43. Van der Heijden R.T. et al (2007) Orthology prediction at scalable resolution by phylogenetic tree analysis. BMC Bioinformatics, 8, 83. 17346331 PMC1838432
  44. Wapinski I. et al (2007) Automatic genome-wide reconstruction of phylogenetic gene trees. Bioinformatics, 23, i549– i558. 17646342
  45. Woods S. et al (2013) Duplication and retention biases of essential and non-essential genes revealed by systematic knockdown analyses. PLoS Genet., 9, e1003330. 23675306 PMC3649981
  46. Zheng C. et al (2011) Omg! orthologs in multiple genomes–competing graph-theoretical formulations. In International Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics. Springer, pp. 364–375.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lafond, M., Meghdari Miardan, M., & Sankoff, D.
Affiliations
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Lafond, Manuel
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2018-06-27
Volume
34
Issue
13
Pages
i366-i375
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2796130155
Cited by
27
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • NSERC
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
Keywords
ortholog prediction, gene duplication, paralogs, gene function prediction
MeSH terms
Phylogeny, Software, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Evolution, Molecular, Computational Biology, Gene Duplication, Eukaryota, Mutation Rate

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