Cargando…
Comparison of computational methods for identifying translation initiation sites in EST data
BACKGROUND: Expressed Sequence Tag (EST) sequences are generally single-strand, single-pass sequences, only 200–600 nucleotides long, contain errors resulting in frame shifts, and represent different parts of their parent cDNA. If the cDNAs contain translation initiation sites, they may be suitable...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2004
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC375524/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15053846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-5-14 |
_version_ | 1782121283525279744 |
---|---|
author | Nadershahi, Afshin Fahrenkrug, Scott C Ellis, Lynda BM |
author_facet | Nadershahi, Afshin Fahrenkrug, Scott C Ellis, Lynda BM |
author_sort | Nadershahi, Afshin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Expressed Sequence Tag (EST) sequences are generally single-strand, single-pass sequences, only 200–600 nucleotides long, contain errors resulting in frame shifts, and represent different parts of their parent cDNA. If the cDNAs contain translation initiation sites, they may be suitable for functional genomics studies. We have compared five methods to predict translation initiation sites in EST data: first-ATG, ESTScan, Diogenes, Netstart, and ATGpr. RESULTS: A dataset of 100 EST sequences, 50 with and 50 without, translation initiation sites, was created. Based on analysis of this dataset, ATGpr is found to be the most accurate for predicting the presence versus absence of translation initiation sites. With a maximum accuracy of 76%, ATGpr more accurately predicts the position or absence of translation initiation sites than NetStart (57%) or Diogenes (50%). ATGpr similarly excels when start sites are known to be present (90%), whereas NetStart achieves only 60% overall accuracy. As a baseline for comparison, choosing the first ATG correctly identifies the translation initiation site in 74% of the sequences. ESTScan and Diogenes, consistent with their intended use, are able to identify open reading frames, but are unable to determine the precise position of translation initiation sites. CONCLUSIONS: ATGpr demonstrates high sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy in identifying start sites while also rejecting incomplete sequences. A database of EST sequences suitable for validating programs for translation initiation site prediction is now available. These tools and materials may open an avenue for future improvements in start site prediction and EST analysis. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-375524 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2004 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-3755242004-03-27 Comparison of computational methods for identifying translation initiation sites in EST data Nadershahi, Afshin Fahrenkrug, Scott C Ellis, Lynda BM BMC Bioinformatics Research Article BACKGROUND: Expressed Sequence Tag (EST) sequences are generally single-strand, single-pass sequences, only 200–600 nucleotides long, contain errors resulting in frame shifts, and represent different parts of their parent cDNA. If the cDNAs contain translation initiation sites, they may be suitable for functional genomics studies. We have compared five methods to predict translation initiation sites in EST data: first-ATG, ESTScan, Diogenes, Netstart, and ATGpr. RESULTS: A dataset of 100 EST sequences, 50 with and 50 without, translation initiation sites, was created. Based on analysis of this dataset, ATGpr is found to be the most accurate for predicting the presence versus absence of translation initiation sites. With a maximum accuracy of 76%, ATGpr more accurately predicts the position or absence of translation initiation sites than NetStart (57%) or Diogenes (50%). ATGpr similarly excels when start sites are known to be present (90%), whereas NetStart achieves only 60% overall accuracy. As a baseline for comparison, choosing the first ATG correctly identifies the translation initiation site in 74% of the sequences. ESTScan and Diogenes, consistent with their intended use, are able to identify open reading frames, but are unable to determine the precise position of translation initiation sites. CONCLUSIONS: ATGpr demonstrates high sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy in identifying start sites while also rejecting incomplete sequences. A database of EST sequences suitable for validating programs for translation initiation site prediction is now available. These tools and materials may open an avenue for future improvements in start site prediction and EST analysis. BioMed Central 2004-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC375524/ /pubmed/15053846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-5-14 Text en Copyright © 2004 Nadershahi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Nadershahi, Afshin Fahrenkrug, Scott C Ellis, Lynda BM Comparison of computational methods for identifying translation initiation sites in EST data |
title | Comparison of computational methods for identifying translation initiation sites in EST data |
title_full | Comparison of computational methods for identifying translation initiation sites in EST data |
title_fullStr | Comparison of computational methods for identifying translation initiation sites in EST data |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of computational methods for identifying translation initiation sites in EST data |
title_short | Comparison of computational methods for identifying translation initiation sites in EST data |
title_sort | comparison of computational methods for identifying translation initiation sites in est data |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC375524/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15053846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-5-14 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nadershahiafshin comparisonofcomputationalmethodsforidentifyingtranslationinitiationsitesinestdata AT fahrenkrugscottc comparisonofcomputationalmethodsforidentifyingtranslationinitiationsitesinestdata AT ellislyndabm comparisonofcomputationalmethodsforidentifyingtranslationinitiationsitesinestdata |