Cited by 1,304Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFractal and DNA sequence analysisGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

Gene prediction in eukaryotes with a generalized hidden Markov model that uses hints from external sources

Open access
Stanke, Mario, Schöffmann, Oliver, Morgenstern, Burkhard, Waack, Stephan·2006·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

Background: In order to improve gene prediction, extrinsic evidence on the gene structure can be collected from various sources of information such as genome-genome comparisons and EST and protein alignments. However, such evidence is often incomplete and usually uncertain. The extrinsic evidence is usually not sufficient to recover the complete gene structure of all genes completely and the available evidence is often unreliable. Therefore extrinsic evidence is most valuable when it is balanced with sequence-intrinsic evidence. Results: We present a fairly general method for integration of external information. Our method is based on the evaluation of hints to potentially protein-coding regions by means of a Generalized Hidden Markov Model (GHMM) that takes both intrinsic and extrinsic information into account. We used this method to extend the ab initio gene prediction program AUGUSTUS to a versatile tool that we call AUGUSTUS+ . In this study, we focus on hints derived from matches to an EST or protein database, but our approach can be used to include arbitrary user-defined hints. Our method is only moderately effected by the length of a database match. Further, it exploits the information that can be derived from the absence of such matches. As a special case, AUGUSTUS+ can predict genes under user-defined constraints, e.g. if the positions of certain exons are known. With hints from EST and protein databases, our new approach was able to predict 89% of the exons in human chromosome 22 correctly. Conclusion: Sensitive probabilistic modeling of extrinsic evidence such as sequence database matches can increase gene prediction accuracy. When a match of a sequence interval to an EST or protein sequence is used it should be treated as compound information rather than as information about individual positions.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2105-7-62

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?

  • 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 [24]

    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: 25

  1. Burge C Identification of Genes in Human Genomic DNA PhD thesis 1997 Stanford University
  2. Stanke M Waack S Gene prediction with a hidden Markov model and new intron submodel Bioinformatics 2003 19 ii215 ii225 14534192
  3. Krogh A Two methods for improving performance of an HMM and their application for gene finding Proc Fifth Int Conf Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology 1997 179 186 9322033
  4. Parra G Enrique B Guigó R GenelD in Drosophila Genome Research 2000 10 511 515 10779490 PMC310871
  5. Parra G Agarwal P Abril J Wiehe T Fickett J Guigó R Comparative Gene Prediction in Human and Mouse Genome Research 2003 13 108 117 12529313 PMC430976
  6. Korf I Flicek P Duan D Brent MR Integrating Genomic Homology into Gene Structure Prediction Bioinformatics 2001 1 S1 S9 11473003
  7. Gross SS Brent MR Using Multiple Alignments to Improve Gene Prediction Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology (RECOMB 2005) 2005 16597247
  8. Alexandersson M Cawley S Pachter L SLAM: Cross-Species Gene Finding and Alignment with a Generalized Pair Hidden Markov Model Genome Research 2003 13 496 502 12618381 PMC430255
  9. Meyer IM Durbin R Comparative ab initio prediction of gene structures using pair HMMs Bioinformatics 2002 18 1309 1318 12376375
  10. Taher L Rinner O Gargh S Sczyrba A Morgenstern B AGenDA: gene prediction by cross-species sequence comparison Nucleic Acids Research 2004 32 W305 W308 15215399 PMC441524
  11. Pedersen JS Hein J Gene finding with a hidden Markov model of genome structure and evolution Bioinformatics 2003 19 219 227 12538242
  12. Siepel A Haussler D Computational identification of evolutionarily conserved exons Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology (RECOMB 2004) 2004 177 186
  13. Brent MR Guigó R Recent advances in gene structure prediction Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2004 14 264 272 15193305
  14. Yeh RF Lim LP Burge C Computational Inference of Homologous Gene Structures in the Human Genome Genome Research 2001 11 803 816 11337476 PMC311055
  15. Krogh A Using Database Matches with HMMGene for Automated Gene Detection in Drosophila Genome Research 2000 10 523 528 10779492 PMC310864
  16. Birney E Clamp M Durbin R Gene Wise and Genomewise Genome Research 2004 14 988 995 15123596 PMC479130
  17. Brejova B Brown DG Li M Vinar T ExonHunter: A Comprehensive Approach to Gene Finding Bioinformatics 2005 21 i57 i65 [Inteligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB 2005)] 15961499
  18. Allen JE Pertea M Salzberg SL Computational Gene Prediction Using Multiple Sources of Evidence Genome Research 2004 14 142 148 14707176 PMC314291
  19. Stanke M Gene Prediction with a Hidden Markov Model PhD thesis 2003 Universität Göttingen, Germany
  20. Stanke M Steinkamp R Waack S Morgenstern B AUGUSTUS: A web server for gene finding in eukaryotes Nucleic Acids Res 2004 32 W309 W312 15215400 PMC441517
  21. Gish W States DJ Identification of protein coding regions by database similarity search Nat Genet 1993 3 266 272 8485583
  22. Guigó R Agarwal P Abril J Burset M Fickett J An Assessment of Gene Prediction Accuracy in Large DNA Sequences Genome Res 2000 10 1631 1642 11042160 PMC310940
  23. Collins JE Goward ME Cole CG Smink LJ Huckle EJ Knowles S Bye JM Beare DM Dunham I Reevaluating Human Gene Annotation: A Second-Generation Analysis of Chromosome 22 Genome Research 2003 13 27 36 12529303 PMC430954
  24. Morgenstern B Dress A Werner T Multiple DNA and protein sequence alignment based on segment-to-segment comparison Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93 1996 12098 12103 PMC37949 8901539
  25. Brudno M Chapman M Göttgens B Batzoglou S Morgenstern B Fast and sensitive multiple alignment of large genomic sequences BMC Bioinformatics 2003 4 66 14693042 PMC521198

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stanke, M., Schöffmann, O., Morgenstern, B., & Waack, S.
Affiliations
University of Göttingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Stanke, Mario
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2006-02-09
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
62-62
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1487554690
Cited by
1,304
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 123 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 137 · 2023: 142 · 2022: 121 · 2021: 122 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 13
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01AK803G)
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 › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
gene prediction, generalized hidden Markov models, extrinsic evidence, Augustus, ab initio gene prediction, exon prediction, chromosome 22, stochastic modeling
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Artificial Intelligence, Base Sequence, Chromosome Mapping, Computer Simulation, Humans, Markov Chains, Models, Genetic, Molecular Sequence Data, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Stochastic Processes, Genetic Variation, Models, Statistical, Information Storage and Retrieval, Sequence Alignment, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Databases, Genetic

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