Recent advances in gene structure prediction

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 264-272

  Brent, Michael R ^a   Guigó, Roderic ^b  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INST MUNIC D INVESTIGACIO MEDICA   (Spain)

Author keywords

EHMM; EST; Evolutionary HMM; Expressed sequence tag; Hidden Markov model; HMM; Indels; Insertions and deletions; Open reading frame; ORF; Poly pyrimidine tract; PPT; Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; RT PCR; Transcription start sites; TSS; UTR

Indexed keywords

ARABIDOPSIS; CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS; EUKARYOTE; EXON; GENE MUTATION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENE STRUCTURE; GENOME; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDOGENE; REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; BASE SEQUENCE; EXONS; GENES; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INTRONS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; NUCLEIC ACID CONFORMATION; PROTEINS;

ARABIDOPSIS; ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA; CAENORHABDITIS; CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS; EUKARYOTA; MAMMALIA;

EID: 2942521197     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2004.05.007     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Burge C., Karlin S. Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA. J Mol Biol. 268:1997;78-94
2. Kulp D., Haussler D., Reese M.G., Eeckman F.H. A generalized hidden Markov model for the recognition of human genes in DNA. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol. 4:1996;134-142
3. Krogh A. Two methods for improving performance of an HMM and their application for gene finding. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol. 5:1997;179-186
4. Guigó R., Knudsen S., Drake N., Smith T. Prediction of gene structure. J Mol Biol. 226:1992;141-157
5. Salamov A.A., Solovyev V.V. Ab initio gene finding in Drosophila genomic DNA. Genome Res. 10:2000;516-522
6. Parra G., Agarwal P., Abril J.F., Wiehe T., Fickett J.W., Guigo R. Comparative gene prediction in human and mouse. Genome Res. 13:2003;108-117 This paper describes the program SGP-2, and its application to the comparative analysis of the human and mouse genomes. SGP-2 is an extension of the GENEID program that incorporates genome alignments obtained with TBLASTX. The paper describes the details of the implementation and a number of factors that influence performance.
7. Alexandersson M., Cawley S., Pachter L. SLAM: cross-species gene finding and alignment with a generalized pair hidden Markov model. Genome Res. 13:2003;496-502 This paper introduces the generalized pair HMM, a hybrid of generalized HMMs for gene prediction and pair HMMs for sequence alignment, and describes its implementation in the SLAM program. In SLAM, the gene prediction and the sequence alignment are obtained simultaneously. SLAM, together with SGP-2 and TWINSCAN, was used in the comparative analysis of the human and mouse genomes.
8. Korf I., Flicek P., Duan D., Brent M.R. Integrating genomic homology into gene structure prediction. Bioinformatics. 17(suppl 1):2001;S140-S148
9. Flicek P., Keibler E., Hu P., Korf I., Brent M.R. Leveraging the mouse genome for gene prediction in human: from whole-genome shotgun reads to a global synteny map. Genome Res. 13:2003;46-54 This paper describes how the program TWINSCAN was used to annotate the entire human genome, using alignments from the entire mouse genome. This was one of the most specific de novo annotations of the human genome ever, predicting about 60% as many exons and genes as GENSCAN while achieving a slighter higher sensitivity to known exons and genes. The paper includes a detailed analysis of TWINSCAN's accuracy and the factors that influence it, such as the number of available shotgun reads from the informant genome.
10. Siepel AC, Haussler D: Computational identification of evolutionarily conserved exons. In RECOMB 2004: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology: 2004 March 27-31; San Diego. New York: ACM Press: 2004:177-186.
11. Pedersen J.S., Hein J. Gene finding with a hidden Markov model of genome structure and evolution. Bioinformatics. 19:2003;219-227
12. Allen J.E., Pertea M., Salzberg S.L. Computational gene prediction using multiple sources of evidence. Genome Res. 14:2004;142-148
13. Hubbard T., Barker D., Birney E., Cameron G., Chen Y., Clark L., Cox T., Cuff J., Curwen V., Down T., et al. The Ensembl genome database project. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:2002;38-41
14. Guigó R., Dermitzakis E.T., Agarwal P., Ponting C., Parra G., Reymond A., Abril J.F., Keibler E., Lyle R., Ucla C., et al. Comparison of mouse and human genomes followed by experimental verification yields an estimated 1, 019 additional genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100:2003;1140-1145 This paper describes a computational pipeline that exploits the human and mouse genome sequences to produce a set of gene predictions with a very high rate of experimental verification by RT-PCR. The first stage of the pipeline is the analysis of the genome sequence with dual-genome predictors. The second stage of the pipeline is based on the observation that almost all mouse genes have a human counterpart with highly conserved exonic structure. Therefore, computational predictions are retained only if the protein predicted in mouse aligns with a predicted human protein with at least one predicted intron in the same location. Experimental verification rates for these predictions reached 76%.
15. Wu J.Q., Shteynberg D., Arumugam M., Gibbs R.A., Brent M.R. Identification of rat genes by TWINSCAN gene prediction, RT-PCR, and direct sequencing. Genome Res. 14:2004;665-671
16. Dewey C., Wu J.Q., Cawley S., Alexandersson M., Gibbs R., Pachter L. Accurate identification of novel human genes through simultaneous gene prediction in human, mouse, and rat. Genome Res. 14:2004;661-664
17. Zhang Z., Harrison P.M., Liu Y., Gerstein M. Millions of years of evolution preserved: a comprehensive catalog of the processed pseudogenes in the human genome. Genome Res. 13:2003;2541-2558
18. Torrents D., Suyama M., Zdobnov E., Bork P. A genome-wide survey of human pseudogenes. Genome Res. 13:2003;2559-2567
19. The MGC Project Team: The status, quality and expansion of the NIH full-length cDNA project (MGC). Genome Res 2004, 14:in press.
20. Zhang L., Pavlovic V., Cantor C.R., Kasif S. Human-mouse gene identification by comparative evidence integration and evolutionary analysis. Genome Res. 13:2003;1190-1202 This paper provides a detailed analysis of three important components of comparative gene predictors: the selection of the most appropriate reference genome; the selection of the most appropriate comparative features to be included in the gene prediction framework; and the selection of the architecture to integrate these comparative features.
21. Kotlar D., Lavner Y. Gene prediction by spectral rotation measure: a new method for identifying protein-coding regions. Genome Res. 13:2003;1930-1937
22. Waterston R.H., Lindblad-Toh K., Birney E., Rogers J., Abril J.F., Agarwal P., Agarwala R., Ainscough R., Alexandersson M., An P., et al. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature. 420:2002;520-562
23. Nekrutenko A., Chung W.Y., Li W.H. An evolutionary approach reveals a high protein-coding capacity of the human genome. Trends Genet. 19:2003;306-310
24. Nekrutenko A., Chung W.Y., Li W.H. ETOPE: evolutionary test of predicted exons. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2003;3564-3567
25. Moore J.E., Lake J.A. Gene structure prediction in syntenic DNA segments. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2003;7271-7279
26. Noguchi H., Yada T., Sakaki Y. A novel index which precisely derives protein coding regions from cross-species genome alignments. Genome Inform Ser Workshop Genome Inform. 13:2002;183-191
27. Parra G., Blanco E., Guigo R. GeneID in Drosophila. Genome Res. 10:2000;511-515
28. Guigó R, Wiehe T: Gene prediction accuracy in large DNA sequences. In Frontiers in Computational Genomics. Edited by Koonin EV, Galperin MY. Norfolk, UK: Caister Academic Press; 2003:1-33. [Saier MH Jr (Series Editor): Functional Genomics Series, vol 3.]
29. Guigó R, Wiehe T: Gene prediction accuracy in large DNA sequences. In Frontiers in Computational Genomics. Edited by Koonin EV, Galperin MY. Norfolk, UK: Caister Academic Press; 2003:1-33. [Saier MH Jr (Series Editor): Functional Genomics Series, vol 3.]
30. Wang M, Buhler J, Brent MR: The effects of evolutionary distance on TWINSCAN, an algorithm for pairwise comparative gene prediction. In The Genome of Homo Sapiens. Edited by Stillman B, Stewart D. Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2004:125-130.
31. Boffelli D., McAuliffe J., Ovcharenko D., Lewis K.D., Ovcharenko I., Pachter L., Rubin E.M. Phylogenetic shadowing of primate sequences to find functional regions of the human genome. Science. 299:2003;1391-1394
32. Holmes I., Bruno W.J. Evolutionary HMMs: a Bayesian approach to multiple alignment. Bioinformatics. 17:2001;803-820
33. Siepel AC, Haussler D: Combining phylogenetic and hidden Markov models in biosequence analysis. In RECOMB 2003: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology: 2003 April 10-14; Berlin. Edited by Miller W, Vingron M, Istrail S, Pevzner P, Waterman MS. New York: ACM Press; 2003:277-287.
34. Wheeler D.L., Church D.M., Edgar R., Federhen S., Helmberg W., Madden T.L., Pontius J.U., Schuler G.D., Schriml L.M., Sequeira E., et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information: update. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:2004;D35-D40
35. Birney E., Durbin R. Using GeneWise in the Drosophila annotation experiment. Genome Res. 10:2000;547-548
36. Howe K.L., Chothia T., Durbin R. GAZE: a generic framework for the integration of gene-prediction data by dynamic programming. Genome Res. 12:2002;1418-1427
37. Pavlovic V., Garg A., Kasif S. A Bayesian framework for combining gene predictions. Bioinformatics. 18:2002;19-27
38. Volfovsky N., Haas B.J., Salzberg S.L. Computational discovery of internal micro-exons. Genome Res. 13:2003;1216-1221
39. Meyer I.M., Durbin R. Gene structure conservation aids similarity based gene prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:2004;776-783
40. Brendel V, Xing L, Zhu W: Gene structure prediction from consensus spliced alignment of multiple ESTs matching the same genomic locus. Bioinformatics 2004, in press.
41. Tolstrup N., Rouze P., Brunak S. A branch point consensus from Arabidopsis found by non-circular analysis allows for better prediction of acceptor sites. Nucleic Acids Res. 25:1997;3159-3163
42. Zhang L., Luo L. Splice site prediction with quadratic discriminant analysis using diversity measure. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2003;6214-6220
43. Zhang X.H., Heller K.A., Hefter I., Leslie C.S., Chasin L.A. Sequence information for the splicing of human pre-mRNA identified by support vector machine classification. Genome Res. 13:2003;2637-2650 This paper describes an analysis of sequence patterns found in intronic regions upstream of splice acceptors and downstream of splice donors. Current gene prediction programs predict splice site locations using only the regions relatively near to a potential splice site, but this paper suggests that gene prediction may be improved by extending splicing models further into the intron.
44. Saeys Y., Degroeve S., Aeyels D., Van De Peer Y., Rouze P. Fast feature selection using a simple estimation of distribution algorithm: a case study on splice site prediction. Bioinformatics. 19(suppl 2):2003;II179-II188
45. Yeo G, Burge CB: Maximum entropy modeling of short sequence motifs with applications to RNA splicing signals. In RECOMB 2003: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology: 2003 April 10-14; Berlin. Edited by Miller W, Vingron M, Istrail S, Pevzner P, Waterman MS. New York: ACM Press; 2003:322-331.
46. Arita M., Tsuda K., Asai K. Modeling splicing sites with pairwise correlations. Bioinformatics. 18(suppl 2):2002;S27-S34
47. Castelo R, Guigo R: Splice site identification by idlBNs. Bioinformatics 2004, in press.
48. Majewski J., Ott J. Distribution and characterization of regulatory elements in the human genome. Genome Res. 12:2002;1827-1836
49. Fairbrother W.G., Yeh R.F., Sharp P.A., Burge C.B. Predictive identification of exonic splicing enhancers in human genes. Science. 297:2002;1007-1013 This paper describes a statistical analysis of over-represented oligonucleotides in the sequence of exons with weak splice signals. The analysis led to the identification of ten exonic splicing enhancers, which were subsequently found to display enhancer activity in vivo.
50. Weir M., Rice M. Ordered partitioning reveals extended splice-site consensus information. Genome Res. 14:2004;67-78 This paper reports that long introns have stronger splice site consensus signals than short introns. Incorporating this relationship into gene prediction models may help to overcome the difficulty in predicting long introns, particularly in combination with better models of the intron length distribution itself.
51. Lim L.P., Burge C.B. A computational analysis of sequence features involved in recognition of short introns. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:2001;11193-11198
52. Wang J., Li S., Zhang Y., Zheng H., Xu Z., Ye J., Yu J., Wong G.K. Vertebrate gene predictions and the problem of large genes. Nat Rev Genet. 4:2003;741-749
53. Stanke M., Waack S. Gene prediction with a hidden Markov model and a new intron submodel. Bioinformatics. 19(suppl 2):2003;II215-II225 This paper describes a single-genome de novo gene prediction program that is based on an HMM model with number of elegant features that have not been previously described. The most significant is a new compromise between speed and accuracy that allows relatively accurate modeling of the distribution of intron lengths to be used without imposing an unacceptably long running time.
54. Rinn J.L., Euskirchen G., Bertone P., Martone R., Luscombe N.M., Hartman S., Harrison P.M., Nelson F.K., Miller P., Gerstein M., et al. The transcriptional activity of human chromosome 22. Genes Dev. 17:2003;529-540
55. Shoemaker D.D., Schadt E.E., Armour C.D., He Y.D., Garrett-Engele P., McDonagh P.D., Loerch P.M., Leonardson A., Lum P.Y., Cavet G., et al. Experimental annotation of the human genome using microarray technology. Nature. 409:2001;922-927
56. Kapranov P., Cawley S.E., Drenkow J., Bekiranov S., Strausberg R.L., Fodor S.P., Gingeras T.R. Large-scale transcriptional activity in chromosomes 21 and 22. Science. 296:2002;916-919
57. Suzuki Y., Yamashita R., Nakai K., Sugano S. DBTSS: database of human transcriptional start sites and full-length cDNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:2002;328-331
58. Bajic V.B., Seah S.H. Dragon gene start finder: an advanced system for finding approximate locations of the start of gene transcriptional units. Genome Res. 13:2003;1923-1929
59. Wasserman W.W., Sandelin A. Applied bioinformatics for the identification of regulatory elements. Nat Rev Genet. 5:2004;276-287
60. Eyras E, Caccamo M, Curwen V, Clamp M: ESTGenes: alternative splicing from ESTs in Ensembl. Genome Res 2004, in press.
61. Thanaraj T.A., Clark F., Muilu J. Conservation of human alternative splice events in mouse. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2003;1-9
62. Burge C: Identification of genes in human genomic DNA [PhD Thesis]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University: 1997.
63. Cawley S.L., Pachter L. HMM sampling and applications to gene finding and alternative splicing. Bioinformatics. 19(suppl 2):2003;II36-II41
64. Kryukov G.V., Castellano S., Novoselov S.V., Lobanov A.V., Zehtab O., Guigo R., Gladyshev V.N. Characterization of mammalian selenoproteomes. Science. 300:2003;1439-1443
65. Castellano S., Novoselov S.V., Kryukov G.V., Lescure A., Blanco E., Krol A., Gladyshev V.N., Guigo R. Reconsidering the evolution of eukaryotic selenoproteins: a novel nonmammalian family with scattered phylogenetic distribution. EMBO Rep. 5:2004;71-77
66. Burge CB, Tuschl T, Sharp PS: Splicing precursors to mRNAs by the spliceosomes. In The RNA World. Edited by Gesteland RF, Cech TR, Atkins J. Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1999:chapter 20.