Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18831778›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2008

Improving the specificity of exon prediction using comparative genomics.

Jing Wu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jing WuDepartment of Statistics, Purdue University, 150 N, University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA. jingwu@stat.purdue.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputational gene prediction tools routinely generate large volumes of predicted coding exons (putative exons). One common limitation of these tools is the relatively low specificity due to the large amount of non-coding regions.

methodsA statistical approach is developed that largely improves the gene prediction specificity. The key idea is to utilize the evolutionary conservation principle relative to the coding exons. By first exploiting the homology between genomes of two related species, a probability model for the evolutionary conservation pattern of codons across different genomes is developed. A probability model for the dependency between adjacent codons/triplets is added to differentiate coding exons and random sequences. Finally, the log odds ratio is developed to classify putative exons into the group of coding exons and the group of non-coding regions.

resultsThe method was tested on pre-aligned human-mouse sequences where the putative exons are predicted by GENSCAN and TWINSCAN. The proposed method is able to improve the exon specificity by 73% and 32% respectively, while the loss of the sensitivity < or = 1%. The method also keeps 98% of RefSeq gene structures that are correctly predicted by TWINSCAN when removing 26% of predicted genes that are in non-coding regions. The estimated number of true exons in TWINSCAN's predictions is 157,070. The results and the executable codes can be downloaded from http://www.stat.purdue.edu/~jingwu/codon/

conclusionThe proposed method demonstrates an application of the evolutionary conservation principle to coding exons. It is a complementary method which can be used as an additional criteria to refine many existing gene predictions.

Indexed as

ExonsGenome, HumanModels, StatisticalAlgorithmsAnimalsComputational BiologyConserved SequenceDatabases, GeneticEvolution, MolecularGenomicsHumansMiceModels, GeneticOdds RatioPredictive Value of TestsSequence Alignment

Identifiers

PMID18831778
PMCPMC2559877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.