Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative Analysis of Genomic Island Prediction Tools.
da Silva Filho, Antonio Camilo; Raittz, Roberto Tadeu; Guizelini, Dieval; De Pierri, Camilla Reginatto; Augusto, Diônata Willian; Dos Santos-Weiss, Izabella Castilhos Ribeiro; Marchaukoski, Jeroniza Nunes.
Afiliação
  • da Silva Filho AC; Department of Bioinformatics, Professional and Technical Education Sector, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Raittz RT; Department of Bioinformatics, Professional and Technical Education Sector, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Guizelini D; Department of Bioinformatics, Professional and Technical Education Sector, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • De Pierri CR; Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Augusto DW; Department of Bioinformatics, Professional and Technical Education Sector, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Dos Santos-Weiss ICR; Department of Clinical Analysis, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Marchaukoski JN; Department of Bioinformatics, Professional and Technical Education Sector, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Front Genet ; 9: 619, 2018.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30631340
ABSTRACT
Tools for genomic island prediction use strategies for genomic comparison analysis and sequence composition analysis. The goal of comparative analysis is to identify unique regions in the genomes of related organisms, whereas sequence composition analysis evaluates and relates the composition of specific regions with other regions in the genome. The goal of this study was to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate extant genomic island predictors. We chose tools reported to produce significant results using sequence composition prediction, comparative genomics, and hybrid genomics methods. To maintain diversity, the tools were applied to eight complete genomes of organisms with distinct characteristics and belonging to different families. Escherichia coli CFT073 was used as a control and considered as the gold standard because its islands were previously curated in vitro. The results of predictions with the gold standard were manually curated, and the content and characteristics of each predicted island were analyzed. For other organisms, we created GenBank (GBK) files using Artemis software for each predicted island. We copied only the amino acid sequences from the coding sequence and constructed a multi-FASTA file for each predictor. We used BLASTp to compare all results and generate hits to evaluate similarities and differences among the predictions. Comparison of the results with the gold standard revealed that GIPSy produced the best results, covering ~91% of the composition and regions of the islands, followed by Alien Hunter (81%), IslandViewer (47.8%), Predict Bias (31%), GI Hunter (17%), and Zisland Explorer (16%). The tools with the best results in the analyzes of the set of organisms were the same ones that presented better performance in the tests with the gold standard.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Revista: Front Genet Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Revista: Front Genet Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil