Abstract
We compare the annotation of three complete genomes using the ab initio methods of gene identification GeneScan and GLIMMER. The annotation given in GenBank, the standard against which these are compared, has been made using GeneMark. We find a number of novel genes which are predicted by both methods used here, as well as a number of genes that are predicted by GeneMark, but are not identified by either of the nonconsensus methods that we have used. The three organisms studied here are all prokaryotic species with fairly compact genomes. The Fourier measure forms the basis for an efficient non-consensus method for gene prediction, and the algorithm GeneScan exploits this measure. We have bench-marked this program as well as GLIMMER using 3 complete prokaryotic genomes. An effort has also been made to study the limitations of these techniques for complete genome analysis. GeneScan and GLIMMER are of comparable accuracy insofar as gene-identification is concerned, with sensitivities and specificities typically greater than 0.9. The number of false predictions (both positive and negative) is higher for GeneScan as compared to GLIMMER, but in a significant number of cases, similar results are provided by the two techniques. This suggests that there could be some as-yet unidentified additional genes in these three genomes, and also that some of the putative identifications made hitherto might require re-evaluation. All these cases are discussed in detail.
MeSH Terms
Algorithms
Campylobacter jejuni/genetics
Computational Biology
DNA, Bacterial/genetics
Databases, Nucleic Acid
Fourier Analysis
Genes, Bacterial
Genome, Bacterial
Haemophilus influenzae/genetics
Helicobacter pylori/genetics
Mathematics
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sequence Analysis, DNA/instrumentation,methods
Authors & Affiliations
2 authors, click to expand affiliations / ORCID
Aggarwal Gautam
School of Physical Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110 067, India.
Ramaswamy Ramakrishna
References (17)
17 references, click to expand
-
Computational methods for the identification of genes in vertebrate genomic sequences.
Hum Mol Genet. 1997;6(10):1735-44
PMID: 9300666
-
Discovering and understanding genes in human DNA sequence using GRAIL.
Methods Enzymol. 1996;266:259-81
PMID: 8743689
-
Gene identification in bacterial and organellar genomes using GeneScan.
Comput Chem. 1999 Mar 30;23(2):165-74
PMID: 10353188
-
Automated gene identification in large-scale genomic sequences.
J Comput Biol. 1997 Fall;4(3):325-38
PMID: 9278063
-
The DNA sequence of human chromosome 22.
Nature. 1999 Dec 2;402(6761):489-95
PMID: 10591208
-
Improved microbial gene identification with GLIMMER.
Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Dec 1;27(23):4636-41
PMID: 10556321
-
The gene identification problem: an overview for developers.
Comput Chem. 1996 Mar;20(1):103-18
PMID: 16749184
-
Prediction of probable genes by Fourier analysis of genomic sequences.
Comput Appl Biosci. 1997 Jun;13(3):263-70
PMID: 9183531
-
Finding genes in Plasmodium falciparum.
Nature. 2000 Mar 2;404(6773):34; discussion 34-5
PMID: 10716431
-
Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA.
J Mol Biol. 1997 Apr 25;268(1):78-94
PMID: 9149143
-
Correlation approach to identify coding regions in DNA sequences.
Biophys J. 1994 Jul;67(1):64-70
PMID: 7919025
-
GeneID in Drosophila.
Genome Res. 2000 Apr;10(4):511-5
PMID: 10779490
-
The DNA sequence of human chromosome 21.
Nature. 2000 May 18;405(6784):311-9
PMID: 10830953
-
Evaluation of gene structure prediction programs.
Genomics. 1996 Jun 15;34(3):353-67
PMID: 8786136
-
Exploring genome space.
Nature. 2000 Jun 15;405(6788):820-2
PMID: 10866207
-
Identification of parasitic genes by computational methods.
Parasitol Today. 2000 Mar;16(3):127-31
PMID: 10689334
-
Self-identification of protein-coding regions in microbial genomes.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Aug 18;95(17):10026-31
PMID: 9707594