Evaluation of three automated genome annotations for Halorhabdus utahensis

Genome annotations are accumulating rapidly and depend heavily on automated annotation systems. Many genome centers offer annotation systems but no one has compared their output in a systematic way to determine accuracy and inherent errors. Errors in the annotations are routinely deposited in databa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2009-07, Vol.4 (7), p.e6291-e6291
Hauptverfasser: Bakke, Peter, Carney, Nick, Deloache, Will, Gearing, Mary, Ingvorsen, Kjeld, Lotz, Matt, McNair, Jay, Penumetcha, Pallavi, Simpson, Samantha, Voss, Laura, Win, Max, Heyer, Laurie J, Campbell, A Malcolm
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Genome annotations are accumulating rapidly and depend heavily on automated annotation systems. Many genome centers offer annotation systems but no one has compared their output in a systematic way to determine accuracy and inherent errors. Errors in the annotations are routinely deposited in databases such as NCBI and used to validate subsequent annotation errors. We submitted the genome sequence of halophilic archaeon Halorhabdus utahensis to be analyzed by three genome annotation services. We have examined the output from each service in a variety of ways in order to compare the methodology and effectiveness of the annotations, as well as to explore the genes, pathways, and physiology of the previously unannotated genome. The annotation services differ considerably in gene calls, features, and ease of use. We had to manually identify the origin of replication and the species-specific consensus ribosome-binding site. Additionally, we conducted laboratory experiments to test H. utahensis growth and enzyme activity. Current annotation practices need to improve in order to more accurately reflect a genome's biological potential. We make specific recommendations that could improve the quality of microbial annotation projects.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0006291