The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integration of mapped RNA-Seq reads into automatic training of eukaryotic gene finding algorithm
Abstract
We present a new approach to automatic training of a eukaryotic ab initio gene finding algorithm. With the advent of Next-Generation Sequencing, automatic training has become paramount, allowing genome annotation pipelines to keep pace with the speed of genome sequencing. Earlier we developed GeneMark-ES, currently the only gene finding algorithm for eukaryotic genomes that performs automatic training in unsupervised ab initio mode. The new algorithm, GeneMark-ET augments GeneMark-ES with a novel method that integrates RNA-Seq read alignments into the self-training procedure. Use of ‘assembled’ RNA-Seq transcripts is far from trivial; significant error rate of assembly was revealed in recent assessments. We demonstrated in computational experiments that the proposed method of incorporation of ‘unassembled’ RNA-Seq reads improves the accuracy of gene prediction; particularly, for the 1.3 GB genome of Aedes aegypti the mean value of prediction Sensitivity and Specificity at the gene level increased over GeneMark-ES by 24.5%. In the current surge of genomic data when the need for accurate sequence annotation is higher than ever, GeneMark-ET will be a valuable addition to the narrow arsenal of automatic gene prediction tools.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
More precise gene predictions are made when predictions based on statistical models are corrected by extrinsic evidence.
“Therefore, more precise gene predictions are made when predictions based on statistical models are corrected by extrinsic evidence (Stanke et al. 2008; Lomsadze et al. 2014; Brůna et al. 2020).”
From BRAKER3: Fully automated genome annotation using RNA-seq and protein evidence with GeneMark-ETP, AUGUSTUS, and TSEBRA (2024) · cites this paper as Lomsadze et al. 2014
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
Trapnell, C., Williams, B. A., Pertea, G., Mortazavi, A., Kwan, G., van Baren, M. J., Salzberg, S. L., Wold, B. J., & Pachter, L. (2010) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1621 · Cited by 15,556
Noisy Splicing Drives mRNA Isoform Diversity in Human Cells
Pickrell, J. K., Pai, A. A., Gilad, Y., & Pritchard, J. K. (2010) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001236 · Cited by 311
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Burge, 1997, Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA, J. Mol. Biol., 268, 78, 10.1006/jmbi.1997.0951 · DOI
- Stanke, 2003, Gene prediction with a hidden Markov model and a new intron submodel, Bioinformatics, 19, ii215, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg1080 · DOI · Paper page
- Korf, 2004, Gene finding in novel genomes, BMC Bioinformatics, 5, 59, 10.1186/1471-2105-5-59 · DOI
- Majoros, 2004, TigrScan and GlimmerHMM: two open source ab initio eukaryotic gene-finders, Bioinformatics, 20, 2878, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth315 · DOI
- Lomsadze, 2005, Gene identification in novel eukaryotic genomes by self-training algorithm, Nucleic Acids Res., 33, 6494, 10.1093/nar/gki937 · DOI
- Ter-Hovhannisyan, 2008, Gene prediction in novel fungal genomes using an ab initio algorithm with unsupervised training, Genome Res., 18, 1979, 10.1101/gr.081612.108 · DOI
- Parra, 2000, GeneID in Drosophila, Genome Res., 10, 511, 10.1101/gr.10.4.511 · DOI
- Steijger, 2013, Assessment of transcript reconstruction methods for RNA-seq, Nat. Methods, 10, 1177, 10.1038/nmeth.2714 · DOI · Paper page
- Parra, 2007, CEGMA: a pipeline to accurately annotate core genes in eukaryotic genomes, Bioinformatics, 23, 1061, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm071 · DOI
- Megy, 2012, VectorBase: improvements to a bioinformatics resource for invertebrate vector genomics, Nucleic Acids Res., 40, D729, 10.1093/nar/gkr1089 · DOI
- Nene, 2007, Genome sequence of Aedes aegypti, a major arbovirus vector, Science, 316, 1718, 10.1126/science.1138878 · DOI
- Holt, 2002, The genome sequence of the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae, Science, 298, 129, 10.1126/science.1076181 · DOI
- Arensburger, 2010, Sequencing of Culex quinquefasciatus establishes a platform for mosquito comparative genomics, Science, 330, 86, 10.1126/science.1191864 · DOI
- Adams, 2000, The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster, Science, 287, 2185, 10.1126/science.287.5461.2185 · DOI
- McQuilton, 2012, FlyBase 101–the basics of navigating FlyBase, Nucleic Acids Res., 40, D706, 10.1093/nar/gkr1030 · DOI
- Jurka, 2005, Repbase update, a database of eukaryotic repetitive elements, Cytogenet. Genome Res., 110, 462, 10.1159/000084979 · DOI
- Trapnell, 2009, TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-Seq, Bioinformatics, 25, 1105, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp120 · DOI
- Li, 2013, TrueSight: a new algorithm for splice junction detection using RNA-seq, Nucleic Acids Res., 41, e51, 10.1093/nar/gks1311 · DOI
- Burns, 2014, UnSplicer: mapping spliced RNA-Seq reads in compact genomes and filtering noisy splicing, 10.1093/nar/gkt1141 · DOI
- Besemer, 1999, Heuristic approach to deriving models for gene finding, Nucleic Acids Res., 27, 3911, 10.1093/nar/27.19.3911 · DOI
- Melamud, 2009, Stochastic noise in splicing machinery, Nucleic Acids Res., 37, 4873, 10.1093/nar/gkp471 · DOI
- Holt, 2011, MAKER2: an annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects, BMC Bioinformatics, 12, 491, 10.1186/1471-2105-12-491 · DOI · Paper page
- Piriyapongsa, 2007, Evaluating the protein coding potential of exonized transposable element sequences, Biol. Direct, 2, 31, 10.1186/1745-6150-2-31 · DOI
- Guigo, 2006, EGASP: the human ENCODE Genome Annotation Assessment Project, Genome Biol., 7, S2, 10.1186/gb-2006-7-s1-s2 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gabriel, L., Brůna, T., Hoff, K. J., Ebel, M., Lomsadze, A., Borodovsky, M., & Stanke, M. (2024) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.278090.123 · Cited by 676
Self-citationMuñoz, J. F., Gade, L., Chow, N. A., Loparev, V. N., Juieng, P., Berkow, E. L., Farrer, R. A., Litvintseva, A. P., & Cuomo, C. A. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07779-6 · Cited by 458
Clade-specific chromosomal rearrangements and loss of subtelomeric adhesins in Candida auris
Muñoz, J. F., Welsh, R. M., Shea, T., Batra, D., Gade, L., Howard, D., Rowe, L. A., Meis, J. F., Litvintseva, A. P., & Cuomo, C. A. (2021) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/iyab029 · Cited by 125
Metadata
- Authors
- Lomsadze, A., Burns, P. D., & Borodovsky, M.
- Affiliations
- Joint Georgia Tech and Emory Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Atlanta, GA, USA 30332
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-07-02
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- e119-e119
- ISSN
- 1362-4962
- 0305-1048
- PMC
- PMC4150757
- Cited by
- 612
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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