Leila Fattel1, Dennis Psaroudakis2, Colleen F Yanarella1, Kevin O Chiteri1, Haley A Dostalik1, Parnal Joshi3, Dollye C Starr1, Ha Vu4, Kokulapalan Wimalanathan4, Carolyn J Lawrence-Dill1,4. 1. Department of Agronomy, 2104 Agronomy Hall, 716 Farm House Lane Ames, Iowa 50011-1051, USA. 2. Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, 1344 Advanced Teaching & Research Bldg, 2213 Pammel Drive, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. 3. Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, 1800 Christensen Drive, Ames, Iowa 50011-1134, USA. 4. Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, 1210 Molecular Biology Building, 2437 Pammel Drive, Ames, Iowa 50011-1079, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genome-wide gene function annotations are useful for hypothesis generation and for prioritizing candidate genes potentially responsible for phenotypes of interest. We functionally annotated the genes of 18 crop plant genomes across 14 species using the GOMAP pipeline. RESULTS: By comparison to existing GO annotation datasets, GOMAP-generated datasets cover more genes, contain more GO terms, and are similar in quality (based on precision and recall metrics using existing gold standards as the basis for comparison). From there, we sought to determine whether the datasets across multiple species could be used together to carry out comparative functional genomics analyses in plants. To test the idea and as a proof of concept, we created dendrograms of functional relatedness based on terms assigned for all 18 genomes. These dendrograms were compared to well-established species-level evolutionary phylogenies to determine whether trees derived were in agreement with known evolutionary relationships, which they largely are. Where discrepancies were observed, we determined branch support based on jackknifing then removed individual annotation sets by genome to identify the annotation sets causing unexpected relationships. CONCLUSIONS: GOMAP-derived functional annotations used together across multiple species generally retain sufficient biological signal to recover known phylogenetic relationships based on genome-wide functional similarities, indicating that comparative functional genomics across species based on GO data holds promise for generating novel hypotheses about comparative gene function and traits.
BACKGROUND: Genome-wide gene function annotations are useful for hypothesis generation and for prioritizing candidate genes potentially responsible for phenotypes of interest. We functionally annotated the genes of 18 crop plant genomes across 14 species using the GOMAP pipeline. RESULTS: By comparison to existing GO annotation datasets, GOMAP-generated datasets cover more genes, contain more GO terms, and are similar in quality (based on precision and recall metrics using existing gold standards as the basis for comparison). From there, we sought to determine whether the datasets across multiple species could be used together to carry out comparative functional genomics analyses in plants. To test the idea and as a proof of concept, we created dendrograms of functional relatedness based on terms assigned for all 18 genomes. These dendrograms were compared to well-established species-level evolutionary phylogenies to determine whether trees derived were in agreement with known evolutionary relationships, which they largely are. Where discrepancies were observed, we determined branch support based on jackknifing then removed individual annotation sets by genome to identify the annotation sets causing unexpected relationships. CONCLUSIONS: GOMAP-derived functional annotations used together across multiple species generally retain sufficient biological signal to recover known phylogenetic relationships based on genome-wide functional similarities, indicating that comparative functional genomics across species based on GO data holds promise for generating novel hypotheses about comparative gene function and traits.
Authors: Felipe A Simão; Robert M Waterhouse; Panagiotis Ioannidis; Evgenia V Kriventseva; Evgeny M Zdobnov Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Ryan F McCormick; Sandra K Truong; Avinash Sreedasyam; Jerry Jenkins; Shengqiang Shu; David Sims; Megan Kennedy; Mojgan Amirebrahimi; Brock D Weers; Brian McKinley; Ashley Mattison; Daryl T Morishige; Jane Grimwood; Jeremy Schmutz; John E Mullet Journal: Plant J Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 6.417
Authors: Candice N Hirsch; Cory D Hirsch; Alex B Brohammer; Megan J Bowman; Ilya Soifer; Omer Barad; Doron Shem-Tov; Kobi Baruch; Fei Lu; Alvaro G Hernandez; Christopher J Fields; Chris L Wright; Klaus Koehler; Nathan M Springer; Edward Buckler; C Robin Buell; Natalia de Leon; Shawn M Kaeppler; Kevin L Childs; Mark A Mikel Journal: Plant Cell Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 11.277
Authors: Haibao Tang; Vivek Krishnakumar; Shelby Bidwell; Benjamin Rosen; Agnes Chan; Shiguo Zhou; Laurent Gentzbittel; Kevin L Childs; Mark Yandell; Heidrun Gundlach; Klaus F X Mayer; David C Schwartz; Christopher D Town Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2014-04-27 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Nancy Manchanda; John L Portwood; Margaret R Woodhouse; Arun S Seetharam; Carolyn J Lawrence-Dill; Carson M Andorf; Matthew B Hufford Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 3.969