CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Realistic artificial DNA sequences as negative controls for computational genomics

Caballero, Juan, Smit, Arian F. A., Hood, Leroy, Glusman, Gustavo·2014·Nucleic Acids Research
DOI 10.1093/nar/gku356PMC PMC4081056
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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/nar/gku356

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Total number of known and predicted coding genes in Ensembl 64 for human and other species. The gene size is determined by the total length in bases of each CDS.
Figure 1. Total number of known and predicted coding genes in Ensembl 64 for human and other species. The gene size is determined by the total length in bases of each CDS.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Overview of the algorithms. Our development consists of two stages: (1) training (left side): the fraction of the genome remaining after masking of functional and repetitive regions is analyzed for k-mer and GC content. Repeats are also modeled, separated into interspersed (IR) and simple sequence repeats (SR); (2) generation (right side): a base sequence is generated using the k-mer and GC profiles. Artificially evolved repeats are then inserted into the base sequence to create a new artificial sequence.
Figure 2. Overview of the algorithms. Our development consists of two stages: (1) training (left side): the fraction of the genome remaining after masking of functional and repetitive regions is analyzed for k-mer and GC content. Repeats are also modeled, separated into interspersed (IR) and simple sequence repeats (SR); (2) generation (right side): a base sequence is generated using the k-mer and GC profiles. Artificially evolved repeats are then inserted into the base sequence to create a new artificial sequence.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Multi-species PCA. We compared the GC-binned tetramer composition of orthologous sequences in human (hs), chimpanzee (pt), cow (bt), dog (cf), elephant (la), guinea pig (cp), marmoset (cj), horse (ec), mouse (mm), orangutan (pa), panda (am), pig (ss), rabbit (os), rat (rn) and rhesus (rm) for intergenic (blue) and intronic (red) regions.
Figure 3. Multi-species PCA. We compared the GC-binned tetramer composition of orthologous sequences in human (hs), chimpanzee (pt), cow (bt), dog (cf), elephant (la), guinea pig (cp), marmoset (cj), horse (ec), mouse (mm), orangutan (pa), panda (am), pig (ss), rabbit (os), rat (rn) and rhesus (rm) for intergenic (blue) and intronic (red) regions.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4. GESTALT comparison of artificial, real and shuffled sequences. (a) Artificial sequence, (b) Intergenic region chr4:104640972–104740972, (c) Intergenic region chr4:104640972–104740972 after dimer permutation. The elements in RepeatMasker are: LINEs in green, SINEs in red/pink, LTR, DNA transposable elements and others in brown.
Figure 4. GESTALT comparison of artificial, real and shuffled sequences. (a) Artificial sequence, (b) Intergenic region chr4:104640972–104740972, (c) Intergenic region chr4:104640972–104740972 after dimer permutation. The elements in RepeatMasker are: LINEs in green, SINEs in red/pink, LTR, DNA transposable elements and others in brown.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Principal component analysis of composition and complexity measures. We compare 100 sequences with 100 kb each for artificial sequences (blue), selected intergenic regions (green) and their respective dimer permutation of intergenic sequences (red).
Figure 5. Principal component analysis of composition and complexity measures. We compare 100 sequences with 100 kb each for artificial sequences (blue), selected intergenic regions (green) and their respective dimer permutation of intergenic sequences (red).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6. Repeat identification benchmarks. (a) False positives expected in dimer-permuted sequences and synthetic sequences without repeats, (b) Alu tests, (c) MIR tests. For (b) and (c), each point represents the average sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp). Colors represent the program (PC = PClouds, RM = RepeatMasker) and word size used for PClouds (8, 10, 12, 14, 16). The transparency of the color denotes the amount of repetitive sequence in each set (10%, 20%, … 90%) and the size of the point the average FPR. Each sequence set includes 10 artificial sequences of 100 kb each generated with k-mer size of 8 and window size of 1000 with a G+C content of 40–60%.
Figure 6. Repeat identification benchmarks. (a) False positives expected in dimer-permuted sequences and synthetic sequences without repeats, (b) Alu tests, (c) MIR tests. For (b) and (c), each point represents the average sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp). Colors represent the program (PC = PClouds, RM = RepeatMasker) and word size used for PClouds (8, 10, 12, 14, 16). The transparency of the color denotes the amount of repetitive sequence in each set (10%, 20%, … 90%) and the size of the point the average FPR. Each sequence set includes 10 artificial sequences of 100 kb each generated with k-mer size of 8 and window size of 1000 with a G+C content of 40–60%.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7. Coding and transcribed size distribution of predicted genes. Predictions in artificial (blue), intergenic (green) and dimer permuted intergenic sequences (red) are compared with known genes (gray) for (a) Augustus, (b) Genscan, (c) Twinscan and (d) FEAST.
Figure 7. Coding and transcribed size distribution of predicted genes. Predictions in artificial (blue), intergenic (green) and dimer permuted intergenic sequences (red) are compared with known genes (gray) for (a) Augustus, (b) Genscan, (c) Twinscan and (d) FEAST.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Do J.H. Choi D. Computational approaches to gene prediction. J. Microbiol. 2006;44:137-144.
  2. 10.1038/nbt0807-883 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/35057062 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1186/gb-2006-7-7-112 · DOI
  5. Mardis E.R. The impact of the next-generation sequencing technologies on genetics. Trends Genet. 2008;3:133-141. · DOI
  6. 10.1126/science.287.5461.2185 · DOI
  7. 10.1038/nature01262 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1038/nature03154 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1186/1471-2164-6-70 · DOI
  10. 10.1101/gr.6380007 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1093/nar/27.2.573 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1006/jmbi.1997.0951 · DOI
  13. 10.1186/1471-2105-6-16 · DOI
  14. 10.1093/nar/gki458 · DOI
  15. 10.1089/cmb.2006.13.379 · DOI
  16. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti609 · DOI
  17. 10.1126/science.283.5405.1168 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/nar/25.5.955 · DOI
  19. 10.1186/1471-2105-3-18 · DOI
  20. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020160 · DOI
  21. 10.1021/pr900947u · DOI
  22. 10.1186/gb-2011-12-11-r118 · DOI
  23. 10.1126/science.1072104 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1038/nature10390 · DOI
  25. 10.1038/nature05846 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1038/nature05805 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1038/nature09687 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/nature02426 · DOI
  29. 10.1126/science.1183670 · DOI
  30. 10.1038/nature08819 · DOI
  31. 10.1126/science.1133609 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1126/science.1076181 · DOI
  33. 10.1038/nature05260 · DOI
  34. 10.1126/science.282.5396.2012 · DOI
  35. Hinrichs A.S. Karolchik D. Baertsch R. Barber G.P. Bejerano G. Clawson H. Diekhans M. Furey T.S. Harte R.A. Hsu F. . The UCSC Genome Browser Database: update 2006. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;1:D590-D598. · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1159/000084979 · DOI
  37. 10.1093/bioinformatics/16.5.482 · DOI
  38. Altschul S.F. Erickson B.W. Significance of nucleotide sequence alignments: a method for random sequence permutation that preserves dinucleotide and codon usage. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1985;2:526-538.
  39. 10.1016/S0076-6879(96)66035-2 · DOI
  40. 10.1093/nar/gkh466 · DOI
  41. Trifonov E.N. Structure & Methods. Albany: Adenine Press; 1990. Making sense of the human genome; p. 69-77. In: Sarma RH and Sarma MH (eds).
  42. Reynolds A. Richards G. de la Iglesia B. Rayward-Smith V. Clustering rules: a comparison of partitioning and hierarchical clustering algorithms. J. Math. Model. Algorithms 1992;5:475-504. · DOI
  43. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002384 · DOI
  44. 10.1093/nar/gkg006 · DOI
  45. 10.1038/nature11247 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1093/gbe/evt028 · DOI
  47. 10.1006/jmbi.1990.9999 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.1101/gr.135350.111 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.1126/science.1142430 · DOI
  50. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000371 · DOI
  51. 10.1038/nature11233 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1093/bioinformatics/13.3.235 · DOI
  53. 10.1186/gb-2008-9-10-r147 · DOI
  54. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti812 · DOI
  55. 10.1093/nar/gkt596 · DOI
  56. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030056 · DOI
  57. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr477 · DOI
  58. 10.1016/j.cub.2013.03.023 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Caballero, J., Smit, A. F. A., Hood, L., & Glusman, G.
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2014-05-06
Volume
42
Issue
12
Pages
e99-e99
ISSN
  • 0305-1048
  • 1362-4962
DOI
10.1093/nar/gku356
PMC
PMC4081056
Cited by
35
References
9
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (vor, 882 d)

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