Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25887563›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

CodingQuarry: highly accurate hidden Markov model gene prediction in fungal genomes using RNA-seq transcripts.

Alison C Testa, James K Hane, Simon R Ellwood, Richard P Oliver

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing 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

109 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The genome of the coral model sea anemoneGigaByte (Hong Kong, China) · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Genome annotation ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. The draft genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2025
    Article
  20. Draft genome for the horse hair fungus,Microbiology resource announcements · 2025
    Article

49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Alison C TestaCentre for Crop and Disease Management, Department of Environment and Agriculture, School of Science, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia. 13392554@student.curtin.edu.au.
James K HaneCentre for Crop and Disease Management, Department of Environment and Agriculture, School of Science, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia. james.hane@curtin.edu.au.
Simon R EllwoodCentre for Crop and Disease Management, Department of Environment and Agriculture, School of Science, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia. simon.ellwood@curtin.edu.au.
Richard P OliverCentre for Crop and Disease Management, Department of Environment and Agriculture, School of Science, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia. richard.oliver@curtin.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe impact of gene annotation quality on functional and comparative genomics makes gene prediction an important process, particularly in non-model species, including many fungi. Sets of homologous protein sequences are rarely complete with respect to the fungal species of interest and are often small or unreliable, especially when closely related species have not been sequenced or annotated in detail. In these cases, protein homology-based evidence fails to correctly annotate many genes, or significantly improve ab initio predictions. Generalised hidden Markov models (GHMM) have proven to be invaluable tools in gene annotation and, recently, RNA-seq has emerged as a cost-effective means to significantly improve the quality of automated gene annotation. As these methods do not require sets of homologous proteins, improving gene prediction from these resources is of benefit to fungal researchers. While many pipelines now incorporate RNA-seq data in training GHMMs, there has been relatively little investigation into additionally combining RNA-seq data at the point of prediction, and room for improvement in this area motivates this study.

resultsCodingQuarry is a highly accurate, self-training GHMM fungal gene predictor designed to work with assembled, aligned RNA-seq transcripts. RNA-seq data informs annotations both during gene-model training and in prediction. Our approach capitalises on the high quality of fungal transcript assemblies by incorporating predictions made directly from transcript sequences. Correct predictions are made despite transcript assembly problems, including those caused by overlap between the transcripts of adjacent gene loci. Stringent benchmarking against high-confidence annotation subsets showed CodingQuarry predicted 91.3% of Schizosaccharomyces pombe genes and 90.4% of Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes perfectly. These results are 4-5% better than those of AUGUSTUS, the next best performing RNA-seq driven gene predictor tested. Comparisons against whole genome Sc. pombe and S. cerevisiae annotations further substantiate a 4-5% improvement in the number of correctly predicted genes.

conclusionsWe demonstrate the success of a novel method of incorporating RNA-seq data into GHMM fungal gene prediction. This shows that a high quality annotation can be achieved without relying on protein homology or a training set of genes. CodingQuarry is freely available ( https://sourceforge.net/projects/codingquarry/ ), and suitable for incorporation into genome annotation pipelines.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGenome, FungalSequence Analysis, RNASoftwareGenes, FungalMarkov ChainsModels, GeneticMolecular Sequence AnnotationSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSchizosaccharomyces

Identifiers

PMID25887563
PMCPMC4363200

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.