4.5 Article

Prediction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae replication origins

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/gb-2004-5-4-r22

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM031655, GM 31655] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM031655] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Autonomously replicating sequences ( ARSs) function as replication origins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. ARSs contain the 17 bp ARS consensus sequence (ACS), which binds the origin recognition complex. The yeast genome contains more than 10,000 ACS matches, but there are only a few hundred origins, and little flanking sequence similarity has been found. Thus, identification of origins by sequence alone has not been possible. Results: We developed an algorithm, Oriscan, to predict yeast origins using similarity to 26 characterized origins. Oriscan used 268 bp of sequence, including the T-rich ACS and a 3' A-rich region. The predictions identified the exact location of the ACS. A total of 84 of the top 100 Oriscan predictions, and 56% of the top 350, matched known ARSs or replication protein binding sites. The true accuracy was even higher because we tested 25 discrepancies, and 15 were in fact ARSs. Thus, 94% of the top 100 predictions and an estimated 70% of the top 350 were correct. We compared the predictions to corresponding sequences in related Saccharomyces species and found that the ACSs of experimentally supported predictions show significant conservation. Conclusions: The high accuracy of the predictions indicates that we have defined near-sufficient conditions for ARS activity, the A-rich region is a recognizable feature of ARS elements with a probable role in replication initiation, and nucleotide sequence is a reliable predictor of yeast origins. Oriscan detected most origins in the genome, demonstrating previously unrecognized generality in yeast replication origins and significant discriminatory power in the algorithm.

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

4.5
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