MOTIVATION: The increasing diversity and variable quality of evidence relevant to gene annotation argues for a probabilistic framework that automatically integrates such evidence to yield candidate gene models. RESULTS: Evigan is an automated gene annotation program for eukaryotic genomes, employing probabilistic inference to integrate multiple sources of gene evidence. The probabilistic model is a dynamic Bayes network whose parameters are adjusted to maximize the probability of observed evidence. Consensus gene predictions are then derived by maximum likelihood decoding, yielding n-best models (with probabilities for each). Evigan is capable of accommodating a variety of evidence types, including (but not limited to) gene models computed by diverse gene finders, BLAST hits, EST matches, and splice site predictions; learned parameters encode the relative quality of evidence sources. Since separate training data are not required (apart from the training sets used by individual gene finders), Evigan is particularly attractive for newly sequenced genomes where little or no reliable manually curated annotation is available. The ability to produce a ranked list of alternative gene models may facilitate identification of alternatively spliced transcripts. Experimental application to ENCODE regions of the human genome, and the genomes of Plasmodium vivax and Arabidopsis thaliana show that Evigan achieves better performance than any of the individual data sources used as evidence. AVAILABILITY: The source code is available at http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~strctlrn/evigan/evigan.html.
MOTIVATION: The increasing diversity and variable quality of evidence relevant to gene annotation argues for a probabilistic framework that automatically integrates such evidence to yield candidate gene models. RESULTS:Evigan is an automated gene annotation program for eukaryotic genomes, employing probabilistic inference to integrate multiple sources of gene evidence. The probabilistic model is a dynamic Bayes network whose parameters are adjusted to maximize the probability of observed evidence. Consensus gene predictions are then derived by maximum likelihood decoding, yielding n-best models (with probabilities for each). Evigan is capable of accommodating a variety of evidence types, including (but not limited to) gene models computed by diverse gene finders, BLAST hits, EST matches, and splice site predictions; learned parameters encode the relative quality of evidence sources. Since separate training data are not required (apart from the training sets used by individual gene finders), Evigan is particularly attractive for newly sequenced genomes where little or no reliable manually curated annotation is available. The ability to produce a ranked list of alternative gene models may facilitate identification of alternatively spliced transcripts. Experimental application to ENCODE regions of the human genome, and the genomes of Plasmodium vivax and Arabidopsis thaliana show that Evigan achieves better performance than any of the individual data sources used as evidence. AVAILABILITY: The source code is available at http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~strctlrn/evigan/evigan.html.
Authors: Ramana Madupu; Lauren M Brinkac; Jennifer Harrow; Laurens G Wilming; Ulrike Böhme; Philippe Lamesch; Linda I Hannick Journal: Database (Oxford) Date: 2010-02-18 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Minou Nowrousian; Jason E Stajich; Meiling Chu; Ines Engh; Eric Espagne; Karen Halliday; Jens Kamerewerd; Frank Kempken; Birgit Knab; Hsiao-Che Kuo; Heinz D Osiewacz; Stefanie Pöggeler; Nick D Read; Stephan Seiler; Kristina M Smith; Denise Zickler; Ulrich Kück; Michael Freitag Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: William P Inskeep; Douglas B Rusch; Zackary J Jay; Markus J Herrgard; Mark A Kozubal; Toby H Richardson; Richard E Macur; Natsuko Hamamura; Ryan deM Jennings; Bruce W Fouke; Anna-Louise Reysenbach; Frank Roberto; Mark Young; Ariel Schwartz; Eric S Boyd; Jonathan H Badger; Eric J Mathur; Alice C Ortmann; Mary Bateson; Gill Geesey; Marvin Frazier Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-03-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amit Bahl; Paul H Davis; Michael Behnke; Florence Dzierszinski; Manjunatha Jagalur; Feng Chen; Dhanasekaran Shanmugam; Michael W White; David Kulp; David S Roos Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Eric Kemen; Anastasia Gardiner; Torsten Schultz-Larsen; Ariane C Kemen; Alexi L Balmuth; Alexandre Robert-Seilaniantz; Kate Bailey; Eric Holub; David J Studholme; Dan Maclean; Jonathan D G Jones Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 8.029