» Articles » PMID: 10779488

Genome Annotation Assessment in Drosophila Melanogaster

Overview
Journal Genome Res
Specialty Genetics
Date 2000 Apr 26
PMID 10779488
Citations 77
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Computational methods for automated genome annotation are critical to our community's ability to make full use of the large volume of genomic sequence being generated and released. To explore the accuracy of these automated feature prediction tools in the genomes of higher organisms, we evaluated their performance on a large, well-characterized sequence contig from the Adh region of Drosophila melanogaster. This experiment, known as the Genome Annotation Assessment Project (GASP), was launched in May 1999. Twelve groups, applying state-of-the-art tools, contributed predictions for features including gene structure, protein homologies, promoter sites, and repeat elements. We evaluated these predictions using two standards, one based on previously unreleased high-quality full-length cDNA sequences and a second based on the set of annotations generated as part of an in-depth study of the region by a group of Drosophila experts. Although these standard sets only approximate the unknown distribution of features in this region, we believe that when taken in context the results of an evaluation based on them are meaningful. The results were presented as a tutorial at the conference on Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology (ISMB-99) in August 1999. Over 95% of the coding nucleotides in the region were correctly identified by the majority of the gene finders, and the correct intron/exon structures were predicted for >40% of the genes. Homology-based annotation techniques recognized and associated functions with almost half of the genes in the region; the remainder were only identified by the ab initio techniques. This experiment also presents the first assessment of promoter prediction techniques for a significant number of genes in a large contiguous region. We discovered that the promoter predictors' high false-positive rates make their predictions difficult to use. Integrating gene finding and cDNA/EST alignments with promoter predictions decreases the number of false-positive classifications but discovers less than one-third of the promoters in the region. We believe that by establishing standards for evaluating genomic annotations and by assessing the performance of existing automated genome annotation tools, this experiment establishes a baseline that contributes to the value of ongoing large-scale annotation projects and should guide further research in genome informatics.

Citing Articles

kallisto, bustools and kb-python for quantifying bulk, single-cell and single-nucleus RNA-seq.

Sullivan D, Min K, Hjorleifsson K, Luebbert L, Holley G, Moses L Nat Protoc. 2024; 20(3):587-607.

PMID: 39390263 DOI: 10.1038/s41596-024-01057-0.


Systematic assessment of long-read RNA-seq methods for transcript identification and quantification.

Pardo-Palacios F, Wang D, Reese F, Diekhans M, Carbonell-Sala S, Williams B Nat Methods. 2024; 21(7):1349-1363.

PMID: 38849569 PMC: 11543605. DOI: 10.1038/s41592-024-02298-3.


kallisto, bustools, and kb-python for quantifying bulk, single-cell, and single-nucleus RNA-seq.

Sullivan D, Min K, Hjorleifsson K, Luebbert L, Holley G, Moses L bioRxiv. 2023; .

PMID: 38045414 PMC: 10690192. DOI: 10.1101/2023.11.21.568164.


Systematic assessment of long-read RNA-seq methods for transcript identification and quantification.

Pardo-Palacios F, Wang D, Reese F, Diekhans M, Carbonell-Sala S, Williams B bioRxiv. 2023; .

PMID: 37546854 PMC: 10402094. DOI: 10.1101/2023.07.25.550582.


Repertoire-wide gene structure analyses: a case study comparing automatically predicted and manually annotated gene models.

Wilbrandt J, Misof B, Panfilio K, Niehuis O BMC Genomics. 2019; 20(1):753.

PMID: 31623555 PMC: 6798390. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-019-6064-8.


References
1.
Ohler U, Harbeck S, Niemann H, Noth E, Reese M . Interpolated markov chains for eukaryotic promoter recognition. Bioinformatics. 1999; 15(5):362-9. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/15.5.362. View

2.
Florea L, Hartzell G, Zhang Z, Rubin G, Miller W . A computer program for aligning a cDNA sequence with a genomic DNA sequence. Genome Res. 1998; 8(9):967-74. PMC: 310774. DOI: 10.1101/gr.8.9.967. View

3.
Levitt M . Competitive assessment of protein fold recognition and alignment accuracy. Proteins. 1997; Suppl 1:92-104. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(1997)1+<92::aid-prot13>3.3.co;2-1. View

4.
Agarwal P, States D . Comparative accuracy of methods for protein sequence similarity search. Bioinformatics. 1998; 14(1):40-7. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.1.40. View

5.
Reese M, Kulp D, Tammana H, Haussler D . Genie--gene finding in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Res. 2000; 10(4):529-38. PMC: 310881. DOI: 10.1101/gr.10.4.529. View