4.6 Article

Large-Scale Comparative Genomic Ranking of Taxonomically Restricted Genes (TRGs) in Bacterial and Archaeal Genomes

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000324

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [NER/S/A/2003/11341]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Lineage-specific, or taxonomically restricted genes (TRGs), especially those that are species and strain-specific, are of special interest because they are expected to play a role in defining exclusive ecological adaptations to particular niches. Despite this, they are relatively poorly studied and little understood, in large part because many are still orphans or only have homologues in very closely related isolates. This lack of homology confounds attempts to establish the likelihood that a hypothetical gene is expressed and, if so, to determine the putative function of the protein. Methodology/Principal Findings. We have developed QIPP'' (Quality Index for Predicted Proteins''), an index that scores the quality'' of a protein based on non-homology-based criteria. QIPP can be used to assign a value between zero and one to any protein based on comparing its features to other proteins in a given genome. We have used QIPP to rank the predicted proteins in the proteomes of Bacteria and Archaea. This ranking reveals that there is a large amount of variation in QIPP scores, and identifies many high-scoring orphans as potentially authentic'' (expressed) orphans. There are significant differences in the distributions of QIPP scores between orphan and non-orphan genes for many genomes and a trend for less well-conserved genes to have lower QIPP scores. Conclusions. The implication of this work is that QIPP scores can be used to further annotate predicted proteins with information that is independent of homology. Such information can be used to prioritize candidates for further analysis. Data generated for this study can be found in the OrphanMine at http://www.genomics.ceh.ac.uk/orphan_mine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据