4.7 Article

Pairagon: a highly accurate, HMM-based cDNA-to-genome aligner

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 25, 期 13, 页码 1587-1593

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp273

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Genome Research Institute under ENCODE Project [U54 HG004555]
  2. modENCODE Project [U01 HG004271]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: The most accurate way to determine the intron-exon structures in a genome is to align spliced cDNA sequences to the genome. Thus, cDNA-to-genome alignment programs are a key component of most annotation pipelines. The scoring system used to choose the best alignment is a primary determinant of alignment accuracy, while heuristics that prevent consideration of certain alignments are a primary determinant of runtime and memory usage. Both accuracy and speed are important considerations in choosing an alignment algorithm, but scoring systems have received much less attention than heuristics. Results: We present Pairagon, a pair hidden Markov model based cDNA-to-genome alignment program, as the most accurate aligner for sequences with high- and low-identity levels. We conducted a series of experiments testing alignment accuracy with varying sequence identity. We first created 'perfect' simulated cDNA sequences by splicing the sequences of exons in the reference genome sequences of fly and human. The complete reference genome sequences were then mutated to various degrees using a realistic mutation simulator and the perfect cDNAs were aligned to them using Pairagon and 12 other aligners. To validate these results with natural sequences, we performed cross-species alignment using orthologous transcripts from human, mouse and rat. We found that aligner accuracy is heavily dependent on sequence identity. For sequences with 100% identity, Pairagon achieved accuracy levels of > 99.6%, with one quarter of the errors of any other aligner. Furthermore, for human/mouse alignments, which are only 85% identical, Pairagon achieved 87% accuracy, higher than any other aligner.

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

4.7
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