title: A Statistical Method without Training Step for the Classification of Coding Frame in Transcriptome Sequences.
abstract: In this study, we investigated the modalities of coding open reading frame (cORF) classification of expressed sequence tags (EST) by using the universal feature method (UFM). The UFM algorithm is based on the scoring of purine bias (Rrr) and stop codon frequencies. UFM classifies ORFs as coding or non-coding through a score based on 5 factors: (i) stop codon frequency; (ii) the product of the probabilities of purines occurring in the three positions of nucleotide triplets; (iii) the product of the probabilities of Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), and Adenine (A) occurring in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd positions of triplets, respectively; (iv) the probabilities of a G occurring in the 1st and 2nd positions of triplets; and (v) the probabilities of a T occurring in the 1st and an A in the 2nd position of triplets. Because UFM is based on primary determinants of coding sequences that are conserved throughout the biosphere, it is suitable for cORF classification of any sequence in eukaryote transcriptomes without prior knowledge. Considering the protein sequences of the Protein Data Bank (RCSB PDB or more simply PDB) as a reference, we found that UFM classifies cORFs of ≥200 bp (if the coding strand is known) and cORFs of ≥300 bp (if the coding strand is unknown), and releases them in their coding strand and coding frame, which allows their automatic translation into protein sequences with a success rate equal to or higher than 95%. We first established the statistical parameters of UFM using ESTs from Plasmodium falciparum, Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa, Zea mays, Drosophila melanogaster, Homo sapiens and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in reference to the protein sequences of PDB. Second, we showed that the success rate of cORF classification using UFM is expected to apply to approximately 95% of higher eukaryote genes that encode for proteins. Third, we used UFM in combination with CAP3 to assemble large EST samples into cORFs that we used to analyze transcriptome phenotypes in rice, maize, and humans. We discuss the error rate and the interference of noisy sequences such as pseudogenes, transposons, and retrotransposons. This method is suitable for rapid cORF extraction from transcriptome data and allows correct description of the genome phenotypes of plant genomes without prior knowledge. Additional care is necessary when addressing the human transcriptome due to the interference caused by large amounts of noisy sequences. UFM can be regarded as a low complexity tool for prior knowledge extraction concerning the coding fraction of the transcriptome of any eukaryote. Due to its low level of complexity, UFM is also very robust to variations of codon usage.
authors: Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (IOC), Laboratório de Genômica Funcional e Bioinformática, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
authors: Nicolas
authors: N
authors: Carels
authors: Diego
authors: D
authors: Frías
keywords: CDS; EST; ORF; RNY; UFM; classification; genomics
references: Brief Bioinform. 2006 Jun;7(2):178-85
references: 16772261
references: J Mol Evol. 1995 Mar;40(3):293-307
references: 7723056
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2012 Jan;29(1):421-7
references: 22057813
references: Bioinform Biol Insights. 2009 Jun 03;3:37-49
references: 20140069
references: Bioinform Biol Insights. 2009 Oct 28;3:141-54
references: 20140062
references: Science. 2011 Jul 1;333(6038):53-8
references: 21596952
references: Genome Res. 1999 Sep;9(9):868-77
references: 10508846
references: Physiol Genomics. 2001 Mar 08;5(2):81-7
references: 11242592
references: J Mol Evol. 1998 Jan;46(1):45-53
references: 9419224
references: Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol. 1999;:138-48
references: 10786296
references: Nat Biotechnol. 2011 May 15;29(7):644-52
references: 21572440
references: Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Topics. 2000 May;61(5 Pt B):5624-9
references: 11031617
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2004 Feb 16;5:14
references: 15053846
references: Genome Biol. 2007;8(6):R127
references: 17594509
references: Bioinformatics. 2001 Oct;17(10):913-9
references: 11673235
references: Gene. 1999 Sep 30;238(1):3-14
references: 10570978
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Jul 1;33(Web Server issue):W677-80
references: 15980561
references: Brief Bioinform. 2007 Jan;8(1):6-21
references: 16772268
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):185-90
references: 10592221
references: Genome Biol Evol. 2011;3:1245-52
references: 21948395
references: J Biol. 2010;9(1):5
references: 20156321
references: Neuroscientist. 2008 Oct;14(5):434-45
references: 18997122
references: FEBS Lett. 2004 Jun 18;568(1-3):155-8
references: 15196938
references: Nature. 2008 Nov 27;456(7221):470-6
references: 18978772
references: Genome Biol. 2004;5(4):105
references: 15059247
references: Biochimie. 2008 Apr;90(4):555-62
references: 17825976
references: Gene. 2000 Jan 4;241(1):3-17
references: 10607893
references: Bioinformatics. 2005 Sep 15;21(18):3674-6
references: 16081474
references: Nat Biotechnol. 2009 Apr;27(4):346-7
references: 19352372
references: Gene. 2008 Mar 15;410(2):241-8
references: 18252269
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2004 Nov 30;5:187
references: 15571632
references: PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Dec;5(12):e1000598
references: 20011106
references: Cell. 2009 Feb 20;136(4):629-41
references: 19239885
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 1997 Sep 1;25(17):3389-402
references: 9254694
references: Mol Ecol. 2008 Apr;17(7):1636-47
references: 18266620
references: J Mol Evol. 1995 Mar;40(3):308-17
references: 7723057