Cited by 130Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Shotgun proteomics aids discovery of novel protein-coding genes, alternative splicing, and “resurrected” pseudogenes in the mouse genome

Open access
Brosch, Markus, Saunders, Gary I., Frankish, Adam, Collins, Mark O., Yu, Lu, Wright, James, Verstraten, Ruth, Adams, David J. +3 more·2011·Genome Research

Abstract

Recent advances in proteomic mass spectrometry (MS) offer the chance to marry high-throughput peptide sequencing to transcript models, allowing the validation, refinement, and identification of new protein-coding loci. We present a novel pipeline that integrates highly sensitive and statistically robust peptide spectrum matching with genome-wide protein-coding predictions to perform large-scale gene validation and discovery in the mouse genome for the first time. In searching an excess of 10 million spectra, we have been able to validate 32%, 17%, and 7% of all protein-coding genes, exons, and splice boundaries, respectively. Moreover, we present strong evidence for the identification of multiple alternatively spliced translations from 53 genes and have uncovered 10 entirely novel protein-coding genes, which are not covered in any mouse annotation data sources. One such novel protein-coding gene is a fusion protein that spans the Ins2 and Igf2 loci to produce a transcript encoding the insulin II and the insulin-like growth factor 2–derived peptides. We also report nine processed pseudogenes that have unique peptide hits, demonstrating, for the first time, that they are not just transcribed but are translated and are therefore resurrected into new coding loci. This work not only highlights an important utility for MS data in genome annotation but also provides unique insights into the gene structure and propagation in the mouse genome. All these data have been subsequently used to improve the publicly available mouse annotation available in both the Vega and Ensembl genome browsers (http://vega.sanger.ac.uk).

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 · 10.1101/gr.114272.110

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Initial efforts to assess the contribution of alternative splicing to proteomic composition and diversity focused exclusively on identifying proteins derived from alternatively spliced transcripts in a steady-state system.

    “Initial efforts to assess the contribution of alternative splicing to proteomic composition and diversity have focused exclusively on the identification of proteins derived from alternatively spliced transcripts in a steady-state system (Blakeley et al., 2010, Brosch et al., 2011, Ezkurdia et al., 2012, Lander et al., 2001, Leoni et al., 2011, Tress et al., 2008, Xing et al., 2011, Zhou et al., 2”

    From Impact of Alternative Splicing on the Human Proteome (2017) · cites this paper as Brosch et al., 2011

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brosch, M., Saunders, G. I., Frankish, A., Collins, M. O., Yu, L., Wright, J., Verstraten, R., Adams, D. J., Harrow, J., Choudhary, J. S., & Hubbard, T.
Affiliations
Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2011-04-01
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
756-767
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997509288
Cited by
130
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (077198)
  • Cancer Research UK (13031)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • 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
Keywords
shotgun proteomics, peptide-spectrum matching, novel protein-coding genes, alternative splicing, processed pseudogenes, gene validation, insulin-like growth factor II, genome annotation pipeline
MeSH terms
Animals, Genes, Peptides, Pseudogenes, Genome, Alternative Splicing, Genomics, Proteomics, Mice, Tandem Mass Spectrometry

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