Genome annotation: Which tools do we have for it?

Current Opinion in Plant Biology

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 90-95

  Rouzé, Pierre ^a   Pavy, Nathalie ^a   Rombauts, Stephane ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PLANT SYSTEMS BIOLOGY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ANALYSIS; GENE SEQUENCING; PLANT GENOME;

EUKARYOTA;

EID: 0033118642     PISSN: 13695266     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1369-5266(99)80019-3     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. 1. Bevan M, Bancroft I, Bent E, Love K, Goodman H, Dean C, Bergkamp R, Dirkse W, Van Staveren M, Stiekema W et al.: Analysis of 1.9 Mb of contiguous sequence from chromosome 4 of Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature 1998, 391:485-488.
2. 2. Meinke DZ, Cherry JM, Dean C, Rounsley SD, Koornneef M: Arabidopsis thaliana: a model plant for genome analysis. Science 1998, 282:662-682. This is a very useful review and progress report on the present status of genomics research using Arabidopsis thaliana as a model plant.
3. 3. Wheelan SJ, Boguski MS: Late-night thoughts on the sequence annotation problem. Genome Res 1998, 8:168-169.
4. 4. Galperin MY, Koonin EV: Sources of systematic error in functional annotation of genomes: domain rearrangement, non-orthologous gene displacement, and operon disruption. In Silico Biol 1998, 1:0007. By looking at bacterial genome annotations obtained through similarity search, the authors identify several causes of inadequate annotation which lead to 'database explosion': non-critical use of databases and functional inference, low complexity regions, ignoring multi-domain organisation (http://www.bioinfo.de/isb/1998/01/0007/). A useful paper, together with [27], for those who would like to avoid similar mistakes.
5. 5. Singh GB, Kramer JA, Krawetz SA: Mathematical model to predict regions of chromatin attachment to the nuclear matrix. Nucleic Acids Res 1997, 25:1419-1425.
6. 6. Preston GM, Haubold B, Rainey PB: Bacterial genomics and adaptation to life on plants: implications for the evolution of pathogenicity and symbiosis. Curr Opin Microbiol 1998, 1:589-597.
7. 7. Bouchez D, Höfte H: Functional genomics in plants. Plant Physiol 1998, 118:725-732. The first comprehensive review giving a broad spectrum of the 'toolbox for the global study of gene function in plants' and critically presenting the different methods presently available.
8. 8. Baker PG, Brass A: Recent developments in biological sequence databases. Curr Opin Biotech 1998, 9:54-58
9. 9. Frishman D, Heumann K, Lesk A, Mewes HW: Comprehensive, comprehensible, distributed and intelligent databases: current status. Bioinformatics 1998, 14:551-561. A review focusing on the challenges, and the conceptual and technical aspects of biological databases.
10. 10. Bairoch A, Apweiler R: The Swiss-Prot protein sequence data bank and its supplement TrEMBL in 1999. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:49-54. A short paper presenting the reality of an expert-curated database and its computer-generated complement, as a relational node between various databases. The entire issue of the journal is worth consulting to discover the wide range of existing biological databases.
11. 11. Fickett JW: The gene identification problem: an overview for developers. Comput Chem 1996, 20:103-118.
12. 12. JM Claverie: Computational methods for the identification of genes in vertebrate genomic sequences. Human Mol Genet 1997, 6:1735-1744. A critical and comparative review on the software available for gene prediction, with a historical perspective over the last 15 years and an analytical presentation of the methods behind the software. The author concludes by pointing to conservatism as the common limitation of current methods.
13. 13. Guigo R: Computational gene identification: an open problem. Comput Chem 1997, 21:215-222. The author presents the current limitations of gene finding programs and their low efficiency for gene modeling.
14. 14. Krogh A: Gene finding: putting the parts together. In Guide to Human Genome Computing, edn 2. Edited by Martin Bishop. Oxford: Academic Press; 1998:261-274.
15. 15. Burge CB, Karlin S: Finding the genes in genomic DNA. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1998, 8:346-354. This review presents the rationale of gene finding, and is useful to understand the methodologies (especially GENSCAN) and analyse the current limitations.
16. 16. Trends guide to Bioinformatics Trends Supplement 1998. This very useful supplement to the Trends series of journals contains a few articles that are either fundamental or pragmatic and easy to read for their target audience of biologists. They include features on the most important every-day issues in using bioinformatics and deal with computational issues arising from genome annotation.
17. 17. Computational gene recognition on World Wide Web URL: http://linkage.rockefeller.edu/wli/gene/
18. 18. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ: Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997, 25:3389-3402.
19. 19. Zhang Z, Schäffer AA, Miller W, Madden TL, Lipman DJ, Koonin EV, Altschul SF: Protein sequence similarity searches using patterns as seeds. Nucleic Acids Res 1998, 26:3986-3990.
20. 20. Zhang J, Madden TL: PowerBLAST: a new network BLAST application for interactive or automated sequence analysis and annotation. Genome Res 1997, 7:649-656.
21. 21. Sze SH, Pevzner PA: Las Vegas algorithms for gene recognition: suboptimal and error-tolerant spliced alignment. J Comput Biol 1997, 4:297-309. This is a paper presenting a more efficient algorithm for the spliced alignment method used in PROCRUSTES [22], the principle of which is to search using the exon-intron boundaries that maximize the score of alignment of a cDNA with the genomic sequence.
22. 22. Mironov AA, Roytberg MA, Pevzner PA, Gelfand MS: Performance guarantee gene predictions via spliced alignment. Genomics 1998, 51:332-339.
23. 23. Mott R: EST_GENOME: a program to align spliced DNA sequences to unspliced genomic DNA. Comput Appl Biosci 1997, 13:477-478.
24. 24. Florea L, Hartzell G, Zhang Z, Rubin GM, Miller W: A computer program for aligning a cDNA sequence with a genomic DNA sequence. Genome Res 1998, 8:967-974. This paper presents a new program which can be used to find splice sites by homology searching, and compares its performance to previous similar tools.
25. 25. Jiang J, Jacob HJ: EbEST: an automated tool using expressed sequence tags to delineate gene structure. Genome Res 1998, 8:268-275.
26. 26. Huang X, Adams MD, Zhou H, Kerlavage AR: A tool for analyzing and annotating genomic sequences. Genomics 1997, 46:37-45.
27. 27. Bork P, Koonin EV: Predicting functions from protein sequences: where are the bottlenecks? Nat Genet 1998, 18:313-318.
28. 28. Borodovsky M, McIninch J: GENMARK: parallel gene recognition for both DNA strands. Comput Chem 1993, 17:123-133.
29. 29. Salzberg SL, Delcher AL, Kasif S, White O: Microbial gene identification using interpolated Markov models. Nucleic Acids Res 1998, 26:544-548.
30. 30. Karlin S: Global dinucleotide signatures and analysis of genomic heterogeneity. Curr Opin Microbiol 1998, 1:598-610 This paper reviews the concept of 'genomic signature' introduced by the author to refer to the remarkable stability of dinucleotide abundance in an organism and its conservation in closely related taxa, allowing discrimination between organisms and identification of horizontal transfer.
31. 31. Burset M, Guigo R: Evaluation of gene structure prediction programs. Genomics 1996, 34:353-367.
32. 32. Brendel V, Kleffe J: Prediction of locally optimal splice sites in plant pre-mRNA with applications to gene identification in Arabidopsis thaliana genomic DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 1998, 26:4748-4757.
33. 33. Hebsgaard SM, Konning PG, Tolstrup N, Engelbrecht J, Rouzé P, Brunak S: Splice site prediction in Arabidopsis thaliana pre-mRNA by combining local and global sequence information. Nucleic Acids Res 1996, 24:3439-3452.
34. 34. Tolstrup N, Rouzé P, Brunak S: A branch point consensus from Arabidopsis found by non-circular analysis allows for better prediction of acceptor sites. Nucleic Acids Res 1997, 25:3159-3163. In this paper, the authors show first that it is possible to localize the branch-point in documented Arabidopsis intron sequences using a Hidden Markov Model of the U2 snRNA site, and then that predicting intron branch-points in contigs in addition to splice sites [33] increases the prediction performance for acceptor sites. NetGene2 uses this method and in addition predicts the position of the splice sites in the codon, which could be used later on in gene modeling.
35. 35. Pedersen AG, Nielsen H: Neural network prediction of translation initiation sites in eukaryotes: perspectives for EST and genome analysis. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology. Menlo Park: AAAI Press; 1997:226-233.
36. 36. Xu Y, Uberbacher EC: Automated gene identification in large-scale genomic sequences. J Comput Biol 1997, 4:325-338.
37. 37. Zhang MQ: Identification of protein coding regions in Arabidopsis thaliana genome based on quadratic discriminant analysis. Plant Mol Biol 1998, 37:803-806. This paper is an application of a previous one dedicated to the human genome, describing MZEF for Arabidopsis. The method is using quadratic discriminant analysis, a generalisation of linear discriminant analysis, as used by Solovyev and Salamov [38].
38. 38. Solovyev V, Salamov A: The gene-finder computer tools for analysis of human and model organisms genome sequences. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology. Menlo Park: AAAI Press; 1997:294-302.
39. 39. Burge C, Karlin S: Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA. J Mol Biol 1997, 268:78-94. This paper describes GENSCAN, the most efficient gene prediction software to date for vertebrates. GENSCAN makes use of many signals and compositional statistical properties, with a dependency rule for splice sites. It allows the search for multiple genes on both strands.
40. 40. Lukashin AV, Borodovsky M: GeneMark.hmm: new solutions for gene finding. Nucleic Acids Res 1998, 26:1107-1115.
41. 41. Kleffe J, Hermann K, Vahrson W, Wittig B, Brendel V: GeneGenerator - a flexible algorithm for gene prediction and its application to maize sequences. Bioinformatics 1998, 14:232-243. The first gene prediction tool for a monocot, using a low information conceptual approach.
42. 42. The C. elegans Sequencing Consortium: Genome sequence of the nematode C. elegans: a platform for investigating biology. Science 1998, 282:2012-2018. The first report on the full sequence of a higher eukaryote, with a genome size comparable to Arabidopsis. The accompanying papers from the same issue are worth reading too, as an illustration of what genomics is offering to biology now.
43. 43. Milanesi L, Muselli M, Arrigo P: Hamming-clustering method for signals prediction in 5′ and 3′ regions of eukaryotic genes. Comput Appl Biosci 1996, 12:399-404.
44. 44. Fickett JW, Hatzigeorgiou AG: Eukaryotic promoter recognition. Genome Res 1997, 7:861-878. A documented review on computational promoter recognition, with an excellent first part on biology and a second on a fair comparative analysis of the available tools. The conclusion shows that there is much to be done yet.
45. 45. Duret L, Bucher P: Searching for regulatory elements in human noncoding sequences. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997, 7:399-406. Another, more conceptual, view on the same topic which presents the power of a comparative phylogenetic approach to identify new unknown regulatory elements.
46. 46. Lowe TM, Eddy SR: tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res 1997, 25:955-964.
47. 47. Annotation of transposons and genomic repeats on World Wide Web URL: http://nucleus.cshl.org/protarab/TnAnnotation.htm
48. 48. Bork P, Dandekar T, Diaz-Lazcoz Y, Eisenhaber F, Huynen M, Yuan Y: Predicting function: from genes to genomes and back. J Mol Biol 1998, 283:707-725. This paper raises the issue of genome wide annotation, setting to bridge the gap between phenotype and genotype as a goal. An interesting point made in this review is on using the added value provided by completely sequenced genomes for gene function prediction.
49. 49. Ohta Y, Yamamoto Y, Okazaki T, Uchiyama I, Takagi T: Automatic constructing of knowledge base from biological papers. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology. Menlo Park: AAAI Press; 1997:218-225.
50. 50. Andrade M, Valencia A: Automatic extraction of keywords from scientific text: application to the knowledge domain of protein families. Bioinformatics 1998, 14:600-607.
51. 51. Proux D, Rechenmann F, Julliard L, Pillet V, Jacq B: Detecting gene symbols and names in biological texts: a first step toward pertinent information extraction. In Proceedings from the Ninth Workshop on Genome Informatics. Edited by Miyano S, Takagi T. Tokyo: Universal Academy Press Inc.; 1998:72-80.
52. 52. Lonsdale D: Nomenclature regulation. Nature 1998, 391:118. The International Society for Plant Molecular Biology initiative to develop a kingdom-wide nomenclature can be found on the World Wide Web URL: MENDEL: http://www.mendel.ac.uk/ or http://genome-www.stanford.edu/ Mendel/ see also ATDB: http://genome-www.stanford.edu/Arabidopsis/ nomencl.html for additional information on nomenclature.
53. 53. Sharf M, Schneider R, Casar G, Bork P, Valencia A, Ouzounis C, Sander C: GeneQuiz: a workbench for sequence analysis. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology. Menlo Park: AAAI Press; 1994:348-353.
54. 54. Harris NL: Genotator: a workbench for sequence annotation. Genome Res 1997, 7:754-762.
55. 55. Bailey LC, Fisher S, Schug J, Crabtree J, Gibson M, Overton GC: GAIA: framework annotation of genomic sequence. Genome Res 1998, 8:234-250.
56. 56. Médigue C, Rechenmann F, Danchin A, Viari A: Imagene: an integrated computer environment for sequence annotation and analysis. Bioinformatics 1999, 15:in press. A new kind of integrated annotation environment is presented which is a task management platform incorporating a data management system and a graphical tool. A prototype of Imagene was used for B. subtilis genome sequence annotation.
57. 57. Gelbart W: Databases in genomic research. Science 1998, 282:659-661.
58. 58. Mathé C, Peresetsky A, Déhais P, Van Montagu M, Rouzé P: Classification of Arabidopsis thaliana gene sequences: clustering of coding sequences into two groups according to codon usage improves gene prediction. J Mol Biol 1999, 285:1977-1991. This paper reports the clustering of Arabidopsis coding sequences into two classes according to their codon usage, the main difference lying in the use of T and C at the third codon position. The classes correlate with gene expression. Using GeneMark, it was shown that using two gene models instead of one improves gene prediction.
59. 9 years old. Nat Genet 1996, 14:383-384.
60. 60. Sharpe PA, Burge CB: Classification of introns: U2-type or U12 type. Cell 1997, 91:875-879. A synthetic presentation of the recent finding of a second class of spliceosomal introns found in animal and plants [59]. Their distinctive splicing and signature are described together with the donor and the branch sites.
61. 61. Fichant GA, Burks C: Identifying potential tRNA genes in genomic DNA sequences. J Mol Biol 1991, 220:659-671.
62. 62. Terryn N, Heijnen L, De Keyser A, Van Asseldonck M, DeClercq R: Evidence for an ancient chromosomal duplication in Arabidopsis thaliana by sequencing and analysing a 400 kb contig at the APETALA 2 locus on chromosome 4. FEBS Lett 1999, 445:237-245.