ArticleGenes2011
Reassessing domain architecture evolution of metazoan proteins: major impact of gene prediction errors.
Article in Genes, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of the Metazoan Protein Domain Repertoire Revealed by a Birth-Death-Gain Model.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer disease.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2025Review
- Real or fake? Measuring the impact of protein annotation errors on estimates of domain gain and loss events.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Propagation, detection and correction of errors using the sequence database network.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Review
- Tandem repeats lead to sequence assembly errors and impose multi-level challenges for genome and protein databases.Nucleic acids research · 2019Review
- Article
- Improved strategy for the curation and classification of kinases, with broad applicability to other eukaryotic protein groups.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Putative extremely high rate of proteome innovation in lancelets might be explained by high rate of gene prediction errors.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- A new rhesus macaque assembly and annotation for next-generation sequencing analyses.Biology direct · 2014Article
- A pluralistic account of homology: adapting the models to the data.Molecular biology and evolution · 2014Review
- FixPred: a resource for correction of erroneous protein sequences.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2014Article
- Probing the boundaries of orthology: the unanticipated rapid evolution of Drosophila centrosomin.Genetics · 2013Article
- Improving genome assemblies and annotations for nonhuman primates.ILAR journal · 2013Review
- MisPred: a resource for identification of erroneous protein sequences in public databases.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2013Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In view of the fact that appearance of novel protein domain architectures (DA) is closely associated with biological innovations, there is a growing interest in the genome-scale reconstruction of the evolutionary history of the domain architectures of multidomain proteins. In such analyses, however, it is usually ignored that a significant proportion of Metazoan sequences analyzed is mispredicted and that this may seriously affect the validity of the conclusions. To estimate the contribution of errors in gene prediction to differences in DA of predicted proteins, we have used the high quality manually curated UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot database as a reference. For genome-scale analysis of domain architectures of predicted proteins we focused on RefSeq, EnsEMBL and NCBI's GNOMON predicted sequences of Metazoan species with completely sequenced genomes. Comparison of the DA of UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot sequences of worm, fly, zebrafish, frog, chick, mouse, rat and orangutan with those of human Swiss-Prot entries have identified relatively few cases where orthologs had different DA, although the percentage with different DA increased with evolutionary distance. In contrast with this, comparison of the DA of human, orangutan, rat, mouse, chicken, frog, zebrafish, worm and fly RefSeq, EnsEMBL and NCBI's GNOMON predicted protein sequences with those of the corresponding/orthologous human Swiss-Prot entries identified a significantly higher proportion of domain architecture differences than in the case of the comparison of Swiss-Prot entries. Analysis of RefSeq, EnsEMBL and NCBI's GNOMON predicted protein sequences with DAs different from those of their Swiss-Prot orthologs confirmed that the higher rate of domain architecture differences is due to errors in gene prediction, the majority of which could be corrected with our FixPred protocol. We have also demonstrated that contamination of databases with incomplete, abnormal or mispredicted sequences introduces a bias in DA differences in as much as it increases the proportion of terminal over internal DA differences. Here we have shown that in the case of RefSeq, EnsEMBL and NCBI's GNOMON predicted protein sequences of Metazoan species, the contribution of gene prediction errors to domain architecture differences of orthologs is comparable to or greater than those due to true gene rearrangements. We have also demonstrated that domain architecture comparison may serve as a useful tool for the quality control of gene predictions and may thus guide the correction of sequence errors. Our findings caution that earlier genome-scale studies based on comparison of predicted (frequently mispredicted) protein sequences may have led to some erroneous conclusions about the evolution of novel domain architectures of multidomain proteins. A reassessment of the DA evolution of orthologous and paralogous proteins is presented in an accompanying paper [1].
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.