Ortholog identification in the presence of domain architecture rearrangement

Briefings in Bioinformatics

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 413-422

  Sjölander, Kimmen ^a   Datta, Ruchira S ^a   Shen, Yaoqing ^a   Shoffner, Grant M ^a  

^a University of California at Berkeley   (United States)

Author keywords

Function prediction; Multi domain architecture; Orthology; Phylogenomics; Promiscuous domains; Super ortholog

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; FACTUAL DATABASE; GENOME; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY;

ANIMALS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, FACTUAL; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENOME; HUMANS; PHYLOGENY; PROTEINS;

EID: 80053212413     PISSN: 14675463     EISSN: 14774054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbr036     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 2000;25:25-9.
2. du Plessis L, Skunca N, Dessimoz C. The what, where, how and why of gene ontology-a primer for bioinformaticians. Brief Bioinform 2011 [Epub ahead of print].
3. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997;25:3389-402.
4. Sjölander K. Phylogenomic inference of protein molecular function: advances and challenges. Bioinformatics 2004;20: 170-9.
5. Schnoes AM, Brown SD, Dodevski I, et al. Annotation error in public databases: misannotation of molecular function in enzyme superfamilies. PLoS Comput Biol 2009;5:e1000605.
6. Addou S, Rentzsch R, Lee D, et al. Domain-based and family-specific sequence identity thresholds increase the levels of reliable protein function transfer. J Mol Biol 2009; 387:416-30.
7. 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;1:55-67.
8. Abascal F, Valencia A. Automatic annotation of protein function based on family identification. Proteins 2003;53: 683-92.
9. Basu MK, Carmel L, Rogozin IB, et al. Evolution of protein domain promiscuity in eukaryotes. Genome Res 2008;18: 449-61.
10. Orengo CA, Thornton JM. Protein families and their evolution-a structural perspective. Annu Rev Biochem 2005; 74:867-900.
11. Servant F, Bru C, Carrere S, et al. ProDom: automated clustering of homologous domains. Brief Bioinform 2002;3: 246-51.
12. Corpet F, Servant F, Gouzy J, et al. ProDom and ProDom-CG: tools for protein domain analysis and whole genome comparisons. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28: 267-69.
13. Cuff AL, Sillitoe I, Lewis T, et al. The CATH classification revisited-architectures reviewed and new ways to characterize structural divergence in superfamilies. Nucleic Acids Res 2009;37:D310-4.
14. Andreeva A, Howorth D, Chandonia JM, et al. Data growth and its impact on the SCOP database: new developments. Nucleic Acids Res 2008;36:D419-25.
15. Gilks WR, Audit B, De Angelis D, et al. Modeling the percolation of annotation errors in a database of protein sequences. Bioinformatics 2002;18:1641-9.
16. Jones CE, Brown AL, Baumann U. Estimating the annotation error rate of curated GO database sequence annotations. BMC Bioinformatics 2007;8:170.
17. Brown D, Sjölander K. Functional classification using phylogenomic inference. PLoS Comput Biol 2006; 2:e77.
18. Sjölander K. Getting started in structural phylogenomics. PLoS Comput Biol 2010;6:e1000621.
19. Sankararaman S, Sha F, Kirsch JF, et al. Active site prediction using evolutionary and structural information. Bioinformatics 2010;26:617-24.
20. Eisen JA. Phylogenomics: improving functional predictions for uncharacterized genes by evolutionary analysis. Genome Res 1998;8:163-7.
21. Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat Rev Genet 2005;6: 361-75.
22. Venter JC, Adams MD, Myers EW, et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science 2001;291:1304-51.
23. Brown DP, Krishnamurthy N, Sjölander K. Automated protein subfamily identification and classification. PLoS Comput Biol 2007;3:e160.
24. Mi H, Guo N, Kejariwal A, et al. PANTHER version 6: protein sequence and function evolution data with expanded representation of biological pathways. Nucleic Acids Res 2007;35:D247-52.
25. Glanville JG, Kirshner D, Krishnamurthy N, et al. Berkeley Phylogenomics Group web servers: resources for structural phylogenomic analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 2007;35:W27-32.
26. Krishnamurthy N, Brown DP, Kirshner D, et al. PhyloFacts: an online structural phylogenomic encyclopedia for protein functional and structural classification. Genome Biol 2006;7: R83.
27. Fitch WM. Distinguishing homologous from analogous proteins. Syst Zool 1970;19:99-113.
28. Ohno S. Evolution by Gene Duplication. New York: Springer, 1970.
29. Dessimoz C, Boeckmann B, Roth AC, et al. Detecting non-orthology in the COGs database and other approaches grouping orthologs using genome-specific best hits. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:3309-16.
30. Zmasek CM, Eddy SR. RIO: analyzing proteomes by automated phylogenomics using resampled inference of orthologs. BMC Bioinformatics 2002;3:14.
31. Sonnhammer EL, Koonin EV. Orthology, paralogy and proposed classification for paralog subtypes. Trends Genet 2002;18:619-20.
32. Gabaldon T, Dessimoz C, Huxley-Jones J, et al. Joining forces in the quest for orthologs. Genome Biol 2009;10:403.
33. Kuzniar A, van Ham RC, Pongor S, et al. The quest for orthologs: finding the corresponding gene across genomes. Trends Genet 2008;24:539-51.
34. Tatusov RL, Fedorova ND, Jackson JD, et al. The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics 2003;4:41.
35. O'Brien KP, Remm M, Sonnhammer EL. Inparanoid: a comprehensive database of eukaryotic orthologs. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33:D476-80.
36. Li L, Stoeckert CJ, Jr, Roos DS. Ortho MCL: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. Genome Res 2003;13:2178-89.
37. Jensen LJ, Julien P, Kuhn M, et al. eggNOG: automated construction and annotation of orthologous groups of genes. Nucleic Acids Res 2008;36:D250-4.
38. Petryszak R, Kretschmann E, Wieser D, et al. The predictive power of the CluS Tr database. Bioinformatics 2005;21: 3604-9.
39. Kaplan N, Sasson O, Inbar U, et al. Proto Net 4.0: a hierarchical classification of one million protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33:D216-8.
40. Meinel T, Krause A, Luz H, et al. The SYSTERS Protein Family Database in 2005. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33:D226-9.
41. Edgar RC, Sjölander K. SATCHMO: sequence alignment and tree construction using hidden Markov models. Bioinformatics 2003;19:1404-11.
42. Hagopian R, Davidson JR, Datta RS, et al. SATCHMO-JS: a webserver for simultaneous protein multiple sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree construction. Nucleic Acids Res 2010;38:W29-34.
43. Chen F, Mackey AJ, Vermunt JK, et al. Assessing performance of orthology detection strategies applied to eukaryotic genomes. PLoS One 2007;2:e383.
44. Sjölander K. Phylogenomic inference of protein molecular function: advances and challenges. Bioinformatics 2004;20: 170-9.
45. Vilella AJ, Severin J, Ureta-Vidal A, et al. EnsemblCompara GeneTrees: Complete, duplication-aware phylogenetic trees in vertebrates. Genome Res 2009;19:327-35.
46. Storm CE, Sonnhammer EL. Automated ortholog inference from phylogenetic trees and calculation of orthology reliability. Bioinformatics 2002;18:92-9.
47. Chen K, Durand D, Farach-Colton M. NOTUNG: a program for dating gene duplications and optimizing gene family trees. J Comput Biol 2000;7:429-47.
48. Hahn MW. Bias in phylogenetic tree reconciliation methods: implications for vertebrate genome evolution. Genome Biol 2007;8:R141.
49. Pollard DA, Iyer VN, Moses AM, et al. Widespread discordance of gene trees with species tree in Drosophila: evidence for incomplete lineage sorting. PLoS Genet 2006;2:e173.
50. B.M.E. Moret UR, Warnow T. Sequence length requirements for phylogenetic methods. In: Guigo R, Gusfield D (eds). Proceedings of 2nd InternationalWorkshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics (WABI'02), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2452, Berlin: Springer, 2002;343-56.
51. Saitou N, Nei M. The number of nucleotides required to determine the branching order of three species, with special reference to the human-chimpanzee-gorilla divergence. JMol Evol 1986;24:189-204.
52. van der Heijden RT, Snel B, van Noort V, et al. Orthology prediction at scalable resolution by phylogenetic tree analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2007;8:83.
53. Huerta-Cepas J, Bueno A, Dopazo J, et al. PhylomeDB: a database for genome-wide collections of gene phylogenies. Nucleic Acids Res 2008;36:D491-6.
54. Jothi R, Zotenko E, Tasneem A, et al. COCO-CL: hierarchical clustering of homology relations based on evolutionary correlations. Bioinformatics 2006;22:779-88.
55. Datta RS, Meacham C, Samad B, et al. Berkeley PHOG: PhyloFacts orthology group prediction web server. Nucleic Acids Res 2009;37:W84-9.
56. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Hattori M, et al. From genomics to chemical genomics: new developments in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:D354-7.
57. Krishnamurthy N, Brown D, Sjölander K. FlowerPower: clustering proteins into domain architecture classes for phylogenomic inference of protein function. BMC Evol Biol 2007;7:S12.
58. Hollich V, Storm CE, Sonnhammer EL. OrthoGUI: graphical presentation of Orthostrapper results. Bioinformatics 2002;18:1272-3.
59. Storm CE, Sonnhammer EL. Comprehensive analysis of orthologous protein domains using the HOPS database. Genome Res 2003;13:2353-62.
60. Bateman A, Coin L, Durbin R, et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32:D138-41.
61. Bennett-Lovsey RM, Herbert AD, Sternberg MJ, et al. Exploring the extremes of sequence/structure space with ensemble fold recognition in the program Phyre. Proteins 2008;70:611-25.
62. Bairoch A, Apweiler R, Wu CH, et al. The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt). Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33: D154-9.
63. Altschul SF, Koonin EV. Iterated profile searches with PSI-BLAST-a tool for discovery in protein databases. Trends Biochem Sci 1998;23:444-7.
64. Stamatakis A, Ludwig T, Meier H. RAxML-III: a fast program for maximum likelihood-based inference of large phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 2005;21:456-63.
65. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987;4:406-25.
66. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 2001;17:754-5.
67. Pati A, Ivanova NN, Mikhailova N, et al. GenePRIMP: a gene prediction improvement pipeline for prokaryotic genomes. Nat Methods 2010;7:455-7.
68. Heath TA, Zwickl DJ, Kim J, et al. Taxon sampling affects inferences of macroevolutionary processes from phylogenetic trees. Syst Biol 2008;57:160-6.
69. Pollock DD, Zwickl DJ, McGuire JA, et al. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol 2002;51:664-71.
70. Zwickl DJ, Hillis DM. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst Biol 2002;51:588-98.
71. Katoh K, Toh H. Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program. Brief Bioinform 2008;9:286-98.
72. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 - approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 2010;5(3):e9490.