Cargando…

Comparative Analysis of Genomic Island Prediction Tools

Tools for genomic island prediction use strategies for genomic comparison analysis and sequence composition analysis. The goal of comparative analysis is to identify unique regions in the genomes of related organisms, whereas sequence composition analysis evaluates and relates the composition of spe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: da Silva Filho, Antonio Camilo, Raittz, Roberto Tadeu, Guizelini, Dieval, De Pierri, Camilla Reginatto, Augusto, Diônata Willian, dos Santos-Weiss, Izabella Castilhos Ribeiro, Marchaukoski, Jeroniza Nunes
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6315130/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30631340
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00619
_version_ 1783384218309492736
author da Silva Filho, Antonio Camilo
Raittz, Roberto Tadeu
Guizelini, Dieval
De Pierri, Camilla Reginatto
Augusto, Diônata Willian
dos Santos-Weiss, Izabella Castilhos Ribeiro
Marchaukoski, Jeroniza Nunes
author_facet da Silva Filho, Antonio Camilo
Raittz, Roberto Tadeu
Guizelini, Dieval
De Pierri, Camilla Reginatto
Augusto, Diônata Willian
dos Santos-Weiss, Izabella Castilhos Ribeiro
Marchaukoski, Jeroniza Nunes
author_sort da Silva Filho, Antonio Camilo
collection PubMed
description Tools for genomic island prediction use strategies for genomic comparison analysis and sequence composition analysis. The goal of comparative analysis is to identify unique regions in the genomes of related organisms, whereas sequence composition analysis evaluates and relates the composition of specific regions with other regions in the genome. The goal of this study was to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate extant genomic island predictors. We chose tools reported to produce significant results using sequence composition prediction, comparative genomics, and hybrid genomics methods. To maintain diversity, the tools were applied to eight complete genomes of organisms with distinct characteristics and belonging to different families. Escherichia coli CFT073 was used as a control and considered as the gold standard because its islands were previously curated in vitro. The results of predictions with the gold standard were manually curated, and the content and characteristics of each predicted island were analyzed. For other organisms, we created GenBank (GBK) files using Artemis software for each predicted island. We copied only the amino acid sequences from the coding sequence and constructed a multi-FASTA file for each predictor. We used BLASTp to compare all results and generate hits to evaluate similarities and differences among the predictions. Comparison of the results with the gold standard revealed that GIPSy produced the best results, covering ~91% of the composition and regions of the islands, followed by Alien Hunter (81%), IslandViewer (47.8%), Predict Bias (31%), GI Hunter (17%), and Zisland Explorer (16%). The tools with the best results in the analyzes of the set of organisms were the same ones that presented better performance in the tests with the gold standard.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6315130
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63151302019-01-10 Comparative Analysis of Genomic Island Prediction Tools da Silva Filho, Antonio Camilo Raittz, Roberto Tadeu Guizelini, Dieval De Pierri, Camilla Reginatto Augusto, Diônata Willian dos Santos-Weiss, Izabella Castilhos Ribeiro Marchaukoski, Jeroniza Nunes Front Genet Genetics Tools for genomic island prediction use strategies for genomic comparison analysis and sequence composition analysis. The goal of comparative analysis is to identify unique regions in the genomes of related organisms, whereas sequence composition analysis evaluates and relates the composition of specific regions with other regions in the genome. The goal of this study was to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate extant genomic island predictors. We chose tools reported to produce significant results using sequence composition prediction, comparative genomics, and hybrid genomics methods. To maintain diversity, the tools were applied to eight complete genomes of organisms with distinct characteristics and belonging to different families. Escherichia coli CFT073 was used as a control and considered as the gold standard because its islands were previously curated in vitro. The results of predictions with the gold standard were manually curated, and the content and characteristics of each predicted island were analyzed. For other organisms, we created GenBank (GBK) files using Artemis software for each predicted island. We copied only the amino acid sequences from the coding sequence and constructed a multi-FASTA file for each predictor. We used BLASTp to compare all results and generate hits to evaluate similarities and differences among the predictions. Comparison of the results with the gold standard revealed that GIPSy produced the best results, covering ~91% of the composition and regions of the islands, followed by Alien Hunter (81%), IslandViewer (47.8%), Predict Bias (31%), GI Hunter (17%), and Zisland Explorer (16%). The tools with the best results in the analyzes of the set of organisms were the same ones that presented better performance in the tests with the gold standard. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6315130/ /pubmed/30631340 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00619 Text en Copyright © 2018 da Silva Filho, Raittz, Guizelini, De Pierri, Augusto, dos Santos-Weiss and Marchaukoski. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Genetics
da Silva Filho, Antonio Camilo
Raittz, Roberto Tadeu
Guizelini, Dieval
De Pierri, Camilla Reginatto
Augusto, Diônata Willian
dos Santos-Weiss, Izabella Castilhos Ribeiro
Marchaukoski, Jeroniza Nunes
Comparative Analysis of Genomic Island Prediction Tools
title Comparative Analysis of Genomic Island Prediction Tools
title_full Comparative Analysis of Genomic Island Prediction Tools
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of Genomic Island Prediction Tools
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of Genomic Island Prediction Tools
title_short Comparative Analysis of Genomic Island Prediction Tools
title_sort comparative analysis of genomic island prediction tools
topic Genetics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6315130/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30631340
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00619
work_keys_str_mv AT dasilvafilhoantoniocamilo comparativeanalysisofgenomicislandpredictiontools
AT raittzrobertotadeu comparativeanalysisofgenomicislandpredictiontools
AT guizelinidieval comparativeanalysisofgenomicislandpredictiontools
AT depierricamillareginatto comparativeanalysisofgenomicislandpredictiontools
AT augustodionatawillian comparativeanalysisofgenomicislandpredictiontools
AT dossantosweissizabellacastilhosribeiro comparativeanalysisofgenomicislandpredictiontools
AT marchaukoskijeronizanunes comparativeanalysisofgenomicislandpredictiontools