Sequencing costs have fallen so dramatically that a single laboratory can now afford to sequence even large genomes.
Genome annotation pipelines synthesize alignment-based evidence with ab initio gene predictions to obtain a final set of gene annotations.
The exotic nature of many of the genomes that are currently being sequenced complicates annotation efforts.
Genome annotation has moved beyond merely identifying protein-coding genes to include the annotation of transposons, regulatory regions, pseudogenes and non-coding RNA genes.
Another new challenge is the need to incorporate RNA-seq data into the annotation process.
Annotation quality control and management are becoming major bottlenecks.
Periodic updates to the annotations to every genome are necessary as new data and techniques become available.
Incorrect and incomplete annotations poison every experiment that makes use of them. Providing accurate and up-to-date annotations is therefore essential.
The falling cost of genome sequencing is having a marked impact on the research community with respect to which genomes are sequenced and how and where they are annotated. Genome annotation projects have generally become small-scale affairs that are often carried out by an individual laboratory. Although annotating a eukaryotic genome assembly is now within the reach of non-experts, it remains a challenging task. Here we provide an overview of the genome annotation process and the available tools and describe some best-practice approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Adams, M. D. et al. The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 287, 2185–2195 (2000).
Celniker, S. E. et al. Finishing a whole-genome shotgun: release 3 of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome sequence. Genome Biol. 3, research0079 (2002).
Venter, J. C. et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science 291, 1304–1351 (2001).
Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature 431, 931–945 (2004).
Denoeud, F. et al. Annotating genomes with massive-scale RNA sequencing. Genome Biol. 9, R175 (2008).
Ozsolak, F. et al. Direct RNA sequencing. Nature 461, 814–818 (2009).
Mortazavi, A., Williams, B. A., McCue, K., Schaeffer, L. & Wold, B. Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-seq. Nature Methods 5, 621–628 (2008).
Wang, E. T. et al. Alternative isoform regulation in human tissue transcriptomes. Nature 456, 470–476 (2008). This paper provides one of the most extensively documented surveys of alternatively spliced transcripts. It is a key publication for understanding how extensive alternative splicing is in human tissues, for understanding how powerful RNA-seq data are as a tool for discovering new transcripts and for quantifying their abundance and differential expression patterns.
Chain, P. S. et al. Genomics. Genome project standards in a new era of sequencing. Science 326, 236–237 (2009).
Cantarel, B. L. et al. MAKER: an easy-to-use annotation pipeline designed for emerging model organism genomes. Genome Res. 18, 188–196 (2008).
Ye, L. et al. A vertebrate case study of the quality of assemblies derived from next-generation sequences. Genome Biol. 12, R31 (2011).
Parra, G., Bradnam, K. & Korf, I. CEGMA: a pipeline to accurately annotate core genes in eukaryotic genomes. Bioinformatics 23, 1061–1067 (2007).
Tsai, I. J., Otto, T. D. & Berriman, M. Improving draft assemblies by iterative mapping and assembly of short reads to eliminate gaps. Genome Biol. 11, R41 (2010).
Assefa, S., Keane, T. M., Otto, T. D., Newbold, C. & Berriman, M. ABACAS: algorithm-based automatic contiguation of assembled sequences. Bioinformatics 25, 1968–1969 (2009).
Husemann, P. & Stoye, J. r2cat: synteny plots and comparative assembly. Bioinformatics 26, 570–571 (2010).
Kapitonov, V. V. & Jurka, J. A novel class of SINE elements derived from 5S rRNA. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20, 694–702 (2003).
Kapitonov, V. V. & Jurka, J. A universal classification of eukaryotic transposable elements implemented in Repbase. Nature Rev. Genet. 9, 411–412; author reply 414 (2008).
Lander, E. S. et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001).
Buisine, N., Quesneville, H. & Colot, V. Improved detection and annotation of transposable elements in sequenced genomes using multiple reference sequence sets. Genomics 91, 467–475 (2008).
Han, Y. & Wessler, S. R. MITE-Hunter: a program for discovering miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements from genomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e199 (2010).
McClure, M. A. et al. Automated characterization of potentially active retroid agents in the human genome. Genomics 85, 512–523 (2005).
Bao, Z. & Eddy, S. R. Automated de novo identification of repeat sequence families in sequenced genomes. Genome Res. 12, 1269–1276 (2002).
Price, A. L., Jones, N. C. & Pevzner, P. A. De novo identification of repeat families in large genomes. Bioinformatics 21 (Suppl. 1), i351–i358 (2005).
Smit, A. & Hubley, R. RepeatModeler 1.05. repeatmasker.org [online], (2011).
Morgulis, A., Gertz, E. M., Schaffer, A. A. & Agarwala, R. WindowMasker: window-based masker for sequenced genomes. Bioinformatics 22, 134–141 (2006).
Treangen, T. J. & Salzberg, S. L. Repetitive DNA and next-generation sequencing: computational challenges and solutions. Nature Rev. Genet. 13, 36–46 (2012).
Bergman, C. M. & Quesneville, H. Discovering and detecting transposable elements in genome sequences. Brief. Bioinform. 8, 382–392 (2007).
Cordaux, R. & Batzer, M. A. The impact of retrotransposons on human genome evolution. Nature Rev. Genet. 10, 691–703 (2009).
Witherspoon, D. J. et al. Alu repeats increase local recombination rates. BMC Genomics 10, 530 (2009).
Smit, A. F., Hubley, R. & Green, P. RepeatMasker 3.0 repeatmasker.org [online], (1996–2010).
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).
Korf, I., Yandell, M. & Bedell, J. BLAST: an Essential Guide to the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool 339 (O'Reilly & Associates, 2003). Everyone involved with a genome project should be familiar with BLAST. Reference 31 is the original paper describing this tool. Reference 32 is an entire book describing BLAST and how it is used.
Altschul, S. F. et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402 (1997).
Green, P. Crossmatch. A general purpose utility for comparing any two sets of DNA sequences. PHRAP [online], (1993–1996).
Majoros, W. H. Methods for Computational Gene Prediction 2 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
Camacho, C. et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 421 (2009).
Bairoch, A., Boeckmann, B., Ferro, S. & Gasteiger, E. Swiss-Prot: juggling between evolution and stability. Brief. Bioinform. 5, 39–55 (2004).
Boeckmann, B. et al. Protein variety and functional diversity: Swiss-Prot annotation in its biological context. C.R. Biol. 328, 882–899 (2005).
The UniProt Consortium. Ongoing and future developments at the Universal Protein Resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D214–D219 (2011).
Benson, D. A., Karsch-Mizrachi, I., Lipman, D. J., Ostell, J. & Sayers, E. W. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D26–D31 (2009).
Sayers, E. W. et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D5–D15 (2009).
Kent, W. J. BLAT—the BLAST-like alignment tool. Genome Res. 12, 656–664 (2002).
Slater, G. S. & Birney, E. Automated generation of heuristics for biological sequence comparison. BMC Bioinformatics 6, 31 (2005).
Kapustin, Y., Souvorov, A., Tatusova, T. & Lipman, D. Splign: algorithms for computing spliced alignments with identification of paralogs. Biol. Direct 3, 20 (2008).
Wheelan, S. J., Church, D. M. & Ostell, J. M. Spidey: a tool for mRNA-to-genomic alignments. Genome Res. 11, 1952–1957 (2001).
Florea, L., Hartzell, G., Zhang, Z., Rubin, G. M. & Miller, W. A computer program for aligning a cDNA sequence with a genomic DNA sequence. Genome Res. 8, 967–974 (1998).
Garber, M., Grabherr, M. G., Guttman, M. & Trapnell, C. Computational methods for transcriptome annotation and quantification using RNA-seq. Nature Methods 8, 469–477 (2011).
Simpson, J. T. et al. ABySS: a parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Res. 19, 1117–1123 (2009).
Li, R. et al. De novo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing. Genome Res. 20, 265–272 (2010).
Grabherr, M. G. et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-seq data without a reference genome. Nature Biotech. 29, 644–652 (2011). This paper describes Trinity, a transcriptome assembler that was specifically designed for next-generation sequence data. It is required reading for anyone trying to use RNA-seq data for genome annotation.
Trapnell, C., Pachter, L. & Salzberg, S. L. TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-seq. Bioinformatics 25, 1105–1111 (2009).
Wu, T. D. & Nacu, S. Fast and SNP-tolerant detection of complex variants and splicing in short reads. Bioinformatics 26, 873–881 (2010).
Guttman, M. et al. Ab initio reconstruction of cell type-specific transcriptomes in mouse reveals the conserved multi-exonic structure of lincRNAs. Nature Biotech. 28, 503–510 (2010).
Trapnell, C. et al. Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotech. 28, 511–515 (2010).
Trapnell, C. et al. Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks. Nature Protoc. 7, 562–578 (2012). This paper describes best practice approaches for combining TopHat and Cufflinks when using RNA-seq data for genome annotation.
Haas, B. J. et al. Improving the Arabidopsis genome annotation using maximal transcript alignment assemblies. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 5654–5666 (2003).
Guigo, R., Knudsen, S., Drake, N. & Smith, T. Prediction of gene structure. J. Mol. Biol. 226, 141–157 (1992).
Solovyev, V. V., Salamov, A. A. & Lawrence, C. B. The prediction of human exons by oligonucleotide composition and discriminant analysis of spliceable open reading frames. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Mol. Biol. 2, 354–362 (1994).
Burge, C. & Karlin, S. Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA. J. Mol. Biol. 268, 78–94 (1997). This study describes the ab initio gene predictor GenScan. It is a classic paper that is full of informative explanations of the problems associated with eukaryotic gene prediction.
Reese, M. G., Kulp, D., Tammana, H. & Haussler, D. Genie—gene finding in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Res. 10, 529–538 (2000).
Brent, M. R. Genome annotation past, present, and future: how to define an ORF at each locus. Genome Res. 15, 1777–1786 (2005).
Korf, I. Gene finding in novel genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 5, 59 (2004). This paper describes a gene predictor, SNAP, that is easy to use and to configure. It also clearly explains the pitfalls that are associated with using a poorly trained gene finder or one that has been trained on a different genome from the one that is being annotated.
Reese, M. G. & Guigo, R. EGASP: Introduction. Genome Biol. 7 (Suppl. 1), 1–3 (2006). This is the introduction to an entire issue of Genome Biology that is dedicated to benchmarking an entire host of eukaryotic gene finders and annotation pipelines. Anyone involved with a genome annotation project should have a look at every paper in this special supplement.
Coghlan, A. et al. nGASP—the nematode genome annotation assessment project. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 549 (2008).
Guigo, R. & Reese, M. G. EGASP: collaboration through competition to find human genes. Nature Methods 2, 575–577 (2005).
Stanke, M. & Waack, S. Gene prediction with a hidden Markov model and a new intron submodel. Bioinformatics 19 (Suppl. 2), ii215–ii225 (2003).
Stanke, M., Schoffmann, O., Morgenstern, B. & Waack, S. Gene prediction in eukaryotes with a generalized hidden Markov model that uses hints from external sources. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 62 (2006).
Lukashin, A. V. & Borodovsky, M. GeneMark.hmm: new solutions for gene finding. Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 1107–1115 (1998).
Ter-Hovhannisyan, V., Lomsadze, A., Chernoff, Y. O. & Borodovsky, M. Gene prediction in novel fungal genomes using an ab initio algorithm with unsupervised training. Genome Res. 18, 1979–1990 (2008).
Zhu, W., Lomsadze, A. & Borodovsky, M. Ab initio gene identification in metagenomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e132 (2010).
Korf, I., Flicek, P., Duan, D. & Brent, M. R. Integrating genomic homology into gene structure prediction. Bioinformatics 17, S140–S148 (2001).
Salamov, A. A. & Solovyev, V. V. Ab initio gene finding in Drosophila genomic DNA. Genome Res. 10, 516–522 (2000).
Souvorov, A. et al. Gnomon — the NCBI eukaryotic gene prediction tool. National Center for Biotechnology Information [online], (2010).
Howe, K. L., Chothia, T. & Durbin, R. GAZE: a generic framework for the integration of gene-prediction data by dynamic programming. Genome Res. 12, 1418–1427 (2002).
Mungall, C. J. et al. An integrated computational pipeline and database to support whole-genome sequence annotation. Genome Biol. 3, research0081 (2002).
Misra, S. et al. Annotation of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome: a systematic review. Genome Biol. 3, research0083 (2002).
Yandell, M. et al. A computational and experimental approach to validating annotations and gene predictions in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 1566–1571 (2005).
Allen, J. E. & Salzberg, S. L. JIGSAW: integration of multiple sources of evidence for gene prediction. Bioinformatics 21, 3596–3603 (2005).
Haas, B. J. et al. Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using EVidenceModeler and the Program to Assemble Spliced Alignments. Genome Biol. 9, R7 (2008).
Elsik, C. G. et al. Creating a honey bee consensus gene set. Genome Biol. 8, R13 (2007).
Liu, Q., Mackey, A. J., Roos, D. S. & Pereira, F. C. Evigan: a hidden variable model for integrating gene evidence for eukaryotic gene prediction. Bioinformatics 24, 597–605 (2008).
Haas, B. J., Zeng, Q., Pearson, M. D., Cuomo, C. A. & Wortman, J. R. Approaches to fungal genome annotation. Mycology 2, 118–141 (2011). This paper provides an excellent description of the process used by the Broad Institute for fungal annotation. It is also a good resource for those seeking to learn more about PASA; for more information about PASA, see reference 56.
Holt, C. & Yandell, M. MAKER2: an annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 491 (2011). This study describes the database management and annotation quality-control tools for the MAKER2 genome annotation pipeline. It also explains many of the challenges that are associated with annotating novel genomes and how to overcome them.
Pearson, W. R. & Lipman, D. J. Improved tools for biological sequence comparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 85, 2444–2448 (1988).
Eilbeck, K. et al. The Sequence Ontology: a tool for the unification of genome annotations. Genome Biol. 6, R44 (2005).
Donlin, M. J. in Current Protocols in Bioinformatics. Ch. 9, Unit 9.9 (2007).
Skinner, M. E., Uzilov, A. V., Stein, L. D., Mungall, C. J. & Holmes, I. H. JBrowse: a next-generation genome browser. Genome Res. 19, 1630–1638 (2009).
Stajich, J. E. et al. The Bioperl toolkit: Perl modules for the life sciences. Genome Res. 12, 1611–1618 (2002).
Zhou, P., Emmert, D. & Zhang, P. in Current Protocols in Bioinformatics Ch. 9, Unit 9.6 (2006).
Klimke, W. et al. Solving the problem: genome annotation standards before the data deluge. Stand. Genomic Sci. 5, 168–193 (2011).
Brister, J. R. et al. Towards viral genome annotation standards, report from the 2010 NCBI annotation workshop. Viruses 2, 2258–2268 (2010).
Madupu, R. et al. Meeting report: a workshop on best practices in genome annotation. Database 2010, baq001 (2010).
Mulder, N. & Apweiler, R. InterPro and InterProScan: tools for protein sequence classification and comparison. Methods Mol. Biol. 396, 59–70 (2007).
Finn, R. D. et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, D211–D222 (2010).
Holt, C. Tools and Techniques for Genome Annotation Analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Utah (2011).
Eilbeck, K., Moore, B., Holt, C. & Yandell, M. Quantitative measures for the management and comparison of annotated genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 67 (2009). This paper describes a number of annotation quality-control measures, including annotation edit distance (AED). It also provides some interesting meta-analyses describing the impact of curation efforts on the gene annotations of several model organism databases over a period of several years.
Lewis, S. E. et al. Apollo: a sequence annotation editor. Genome Biol. 3, research0082 (2002).
Engels, R. Argo Genome Browser version 1.0.31. Broad Institute [online], (2010).
Rutherford, K. et al. Artemis: sequence visualization and annotation. Bioinformatics 16, 944–945 (2000).
Hartl, D. L. Fly meets shotgun: shotgun wins. Nature Genet. 24, 327–328 (2000).
Desk, B. H. Introduction to the standalone WWW Blast server. National Center for Biotechnology Information [online], (2002). This page explains how to use a suite of programs to set up a local Blast server for your local database.
Stein, L. D. et al. The generic genome browser: a building block for a model organism system database. Genome Res. 12, 1599–1610 (2002).
Munoz-Torres, M. C. et al. Hymenoptera Genome Database: integrated community resources for insect species of the order Hymenoptera. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D658–D662 (2011).
Smith, C. D. et al. Draft genome of the globally widespread and invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5673–5678 (2011).
Suen, G. et al. The genome sequence of the leaf-cutter ant Atta cephalotes reveals insights into its obligate symbiotic lifestyle. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002007 (2011).
Nygaard, S. et al. The genome of the leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex echinatior suggests key adaptations to advanced social life and fungus farming. Genome Res. 21, 1339–1348 (2011).
Curwen, V. et al. The Ensembl automatic gene annotation system. Genome Res. 14, 942–950 (2004). This paper describes the Ensembl genome annotation pipeline; although the article is now several years old, it is still a good place to start. We would recommend reading this paper and then browsing the extensive Ensembl web site for more information.
Youens-Clark, K. et al. Gramene database in 2010: updates and extensions. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D1085–D1094 (2011).
Duvick, J. et al. PlantGDB: a resource for comparative plant genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D959–D965 (2008).
Goodstein, D. M. et al. Phytozome: a comparative platform for green plant genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D1178–D1186 (2012).
Lawson, D. et al. VectorBase: a data resource for invertebrate vector genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D583–D587 (2009).
Karro, J. E. et al. Pseudogene.org: a comprehensive database and comparison platform for pseudogene annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D55–D60 (2007).
Zheng, D. et al. Integrated pseudogene annotation for human chromosome 22: evidence for transcription. J. Mol. Biol. 349, 27–45 (2005).
Griffiths-Jones, S., Bateman, A., Marshall, M., Khanna, A. & Eddy, S. R. Rfam: an RNA family database. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 439–441 (2003).
Lagesen, K. et al. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, 3100–3108 (2007).
Dolezel, J. & Bartos, J. Plant DNA flow cytometry and estimation of nuclear genome size. Ann. Botany 95, 99–110 (2005).
Laird, C. D. & McCarthy, B. J. Molecular characterization of the Drosophila genome. Genetics 63, 865–882 (1969).
Lowe, T. M. & Eddy, S. R. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 955–964 (1997).
Schattner, P., Brooks, A. N. & Lowe, T. M. The tRNAscan-SE, snoscan and snoGPS web servers for the detection of tRNAs and snoRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, W686–W689 (2005).
Lewis, B. P., Shih, I. H., Jones-Rhoades, M. W., Bartel, D. P. & Burge, C. B. Prediction of mammalian microRNA targets. Cell 115, 787–798 (2003).
Eddy, S. R. A memory-efficient dynamic programming algorithm for optimal alignment of a sequence to an RNA secondary structure. BMC Bioinformatics 3, 18 (2002).
Holmes, I. & Rubin, G. M. Pairwise RNA structure comparison with stochastic context-free grammars. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 7, 163–174 (2002).
QIAGEN. Quick-Start Protocol miRNAeasy Mini Kit. QIAGEN [online], (2011).
Chen, C. et al. Real-time quantification of microRNAs by stem–loop RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, e179 (2005).
van Leeuwen, S. & Mikkers, H. Long non-coding RNAs: guardians of development. Differentiation 80, 175–183 (2010).
Hung., T. & Chang, H. Y. Long noncoding RNA in genome regulation: prospects and mechanisms. RNA Biol. 7, 582–585 (2010).
Tam, O. H. et al. Pseudogene-derived small interfering RNAs regulate gene expression in mouse oocytes. Nature 453, 534–538 (2008).
Zhang, Z., Carriero, N. & Gerstein, M. Comparative analysis of processed pseudogenes in the mouse and human genomes. Trends Genet. 20, 62–67 (2004).
Nawrocki, E. P., Kolbe, D. L. & Eddy, S. R. Infernal 1.0: inference of RNA alignments. Bioinformatics 25, 1335–1337 (2009).
Burset, M. & Guigo, R. Evaluation of gene structure prediction programs. Genomics 34, 353–367 (1996). This paper provides an excellent explanation of how sensitivity and specificity measures can be used to evaluate gene finder performance. This is a classic paper in the field and should be read by anyone involved in gene annotation.
Baldi, P., Brunak, S., Chauvin, Y., Andersen, C. A. & Nielsen, H. Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: an overview. Bioinformatics 16, 412–424 (2000).
Guigo, R. et al. EGASP: the human ENCODE Genome Annotation Assessment Project. Genome Biol. 7 (Suppl. 1), 1–31 (2006).
Schweikert, G. et al. mGene: accurate SVM-based gene finding with an application to nematode genomes. Genome Res. 19, 2133–2143 (2009).
Parra, G., Blanco, E. & Guigo, R. GeneID in Drosophila. Genome Res. 10, 511–515 (2000).
Yeh, R. F., Lim, L. P. & Burge, C. B. Computational inference of homologous gene structures in the human genome. Genome Res. 11, 803–816 (2001).
DeCaprio, D. et al. Conrad: gene prediction using conditional random fields. Genome Res. 17, 1389–1398 (2007).
Gross, S. S., Do, C. B., Sirota, M. & Batzoglou, S. CONTRAST: a discriminative, phylogeny-free approach to multiple informant de novo gene prediction. Genome Biol. 8, R269 (2007).
Bernal, A., Crammer, K., Hatzigeorgiou, A. & Pereira, F. Global discriminative learning for higher-accuracy computational gene prediction. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e54 (2007).
Usuka, J., Zhu, W. & Brendel, V. Optimal spliced alignment of homologous cDNA to a genomic DNA template. Bioinformatics 16, 203–211 (2000).
Kiryutin, B. ProSplign. National Center for Biotechnology Information [online], (2011).
Wang, K. et al. MapSplice: accurate mapping of RNA-seq reads for splice junction discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e178 (2010).
Kitts, P. in The NCBI Handbook (ed. McEntyre, J. & Ostell, J.) (National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2003).
Robinson, J. T. et al. Integrative genomics viewer. Nature Biotech. 29, 24–26 (2011).
The authors would like to thank P. Flicek, B. Haas, N. Jiang, D. Lipman, A. Mackey, K. Pruitt, Y. Sun and J. Stajich for reading an earlier version of this manuscript and for their many helpful suggestions. This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health grants R01GM099939 and R01-HG004694 and by the US National Science Foundation IOS-1126998 to M.Y.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
- Genome annotation
A term used to describe two distinct processes. 'Structural' genome annotation is the process of identifying genes and their intron–exon structures. 'Functional' genome annotation is the process of attaching meta-data such as gene ontology terms to structural annotations. This Review focuses on structural annotation.
- RNA-sequencing data
(RNA-seq data). Data sets derived from the shotgun sequencing of a whole transcriptome using next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques. RNA-seq data are the NGS equivalent of expressed sequence tags generated by the Sanger sequencing method.
A basic statistic for describing the contiguity of a genome assembly. The longer the N50 is, the better the assembly is. See box 1 for details.
- Long interspersed nuclear elements
(LINEs). Retrotransposons that encode reverse transcriptase and that make up a substantial fraction of many eukaryotic genomes.
- Short interspersed nuclear elements
(SINEs). Retrotransposons that do no encode reverse transcriptase and that parasitize LINE elements. ALU elements, which are very common in the human genome, are one example of a SINE.
- Percent similarity
The percent similarity of a sequence alignment refers to the percentage of positive scoring aligned bases or amino acids in a nucleotide or protein alignment, respectively. The term positive scoring refers to the score assigned to the paired nucleotides or amino acids by the scoring matrix that is used to align the sequences.
- Percent identity
The percent identity of a sequence alignment refers to the percentage of identical aligned bases or amino acids in a nucleotide or protein alignment, respectively.
- Unsupervised learning methods
Refers to methods that can be trained using unlabelled data. One example is a gene prediction algorithm that can be trained without a reference set of correct gene models; instead, the algorithm is trained using a collection of annotations, not all of which might be correct.
Provides users with online access to the contents of a data warehouse through user-configurable queries. A data-mart allows users to download data that meet their particular needs: for example,all transcripts from all annotated genes on human chromosome 3.
About this article
Cite this article
Yandell, M., Ence, D. A beginner's guide to eukaryotic genome annotation. Nat Rev Genet 13, 329–342 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3174
The Genome of the Marine Rotifer Brachionus manjavacas: Genome-Wide Identification of 310 G Protein-Coupled Receptor (GPCR) Genes
Marine Biotechnology (2022)
Feature extraction with spectral clustering for gene function prediction using hierarchical multi-label classification
Applied Network Science (2022)
BMC Bioinformatics (2021)
Genomic insights into the origin, domestication and genetic basis of agronomic traits of castor bean
Genome Biology (2021)