MOTIVATION: In silico gene annotation, the process of identifying the genes present in a genome, remains a challenging task. As genome assemblies rapidly increase, the corresponding gene models and repertoires often fall short in quality. Despite advances in annotation methods, a lack of community standards means that most published gene annotations result from ad hoc pipelines. As a result, only a few species have nearly complete and accurate gene models. This annotation quality is thought to affect downstream analyses, including orthology inference, often the first step of comparative genomics studies. RESULTS: We show that different annotation methods yield markedly distinct orthology inferences. We compared orthology assignments of gene models obtained by four prominent protein-coding gene model sources: the NCBI Eukaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline, the Ensembl Gene Annotation System, the UniProt Reference Proteomes, and Augustus 3.4 (an ab initio pipeline). We observe significant discrepancies between sources, namely in the proportion of orthologous genes per genome, the completeness of Hierarchical Orthologous Groups, and the accuracy and recall of the predicted orthologs on a standard orthology benchmark.

SUMMARY: The conservation of pathways and genes across species has allowed scientists to use non-human model organisms to gain a deeper understanding of human biology. However, the use of traditional model systems such as mice, rats and zebrafish is costly, time-consuming and increasingly raises ethical concerns, which highlights the need to search for less complex model organisms. Existing tools only focus on the few well-studied model systems, most of which are complex animals. To address these issues, we have developed Orthologous Matrix and Alternative Model Organism (OMAMO), a software and a web service that provides the user with the best non-complex organism for research into a biological process of interest based on orthologous relationships between human and the species. The outputs provided by OMAMO were supported by a systematic literature review. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://omabrowser.org/omamo/, https://github.com/DessimozLab/omamo. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

This paper describes a new technique for parallelizing protein clustering, an important bioinformatics computation for the analysis of protein sequences. Protein clustering identifies groups of proteins that are similar because they share long sequences of similar amino acids. Given a collection of protein sequences, clustering can significantly reduce the computational effort required to identify all similar sequences by avoiding many negative comparisons. The challenge, however, is to build a clustering that misses as few similar sequences (or elements, more generally) as possible.

MOTIVATION: As the time and cost of sequencing decrease, the number of available genomes and transcriptomes rapidly increases. Yet the quality of the assemblies and the gene annotations varies considerably and often remains poor, affecting downstream analyses. This is particularly true when fragments of the same gene are annotated as distinct genes, which may cause them to be mistaken as paralogs. RESULTS: In this study, we introduce two novel phylogenetic tests to infer non-overlapping or partially overlapping genes that are in fact parts of the same gene. One approach collapses branches with low bootstrap support and the other computes a likelihood ratio test. We extensively validated these methods by (i) introducing and recovering fragmentation on the bread wheat, Triticum aestivum cv. Chinese Spring, chromosome 3B; (ii) by applying the methods to the low-quality 3B assembly and validating predictions against the high-quality 3B assembly; and (iii) by comparing the performance of the proposed methods to the performance of existing methods, namely Ensembl Compara and ESPRIT. Application of this combination to a draft shotgun assembly of the entire bread wheat genome revealed 1221 pairs of genes that are highly likely to be fragments of the same gene. Our approach demonstrates the power of fine-grained evolutionary inferences across multiple species to improving genome assemblies and annotations. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: An open source software tool is available at https://github.com/DessimozLab/esprit2. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

SUMMARY: The evolutionary history of gene families can be complex due to duplications and losses. This complexity is compounded by the large number of genomes simultaneously considered in contemporary comparative genomic analyses. As provided by several orthology databases, hierarchical orthologous groups (HOGs) are sets of genes that are inferred to have descended from a common ancestral gene within a species clade. This implies that the set of HOGs defined for a particular clade correspond to the ancestral genes found in its last common ancestor. Furthermore, by keeping track of HOG composition along the species tree, it is possible to infer the emergence, duplications and losses of genes within a gene family of interest. However, the lack of tools to manipulate and analyse HOGs has made it difficult to extract, display and interpret this type of information. To address this, we introduce interactive HOG analysis method, an interactive JavaScript widget to visualize and explore gene family history encoded in HOGs and python HOG analysis method, a python library for programmatic processing of genes families. These complementary open source tools greatly ease adoption of HOGs as a scalable and interpretable concept to relate genes across multiple species. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: iHam's code is available at https://github.com/DessimozLab/iHam or can be loaded dynamically. pyHam's code is available at https://github.com/DessimozLab/pyHam and or via the pip package 'pyham'.

The Quest for Orthologs (QfO) is an open collaboration framework for experts in comparative phylogenomics and related research areas who have an interest in highly accurate orthology predictions and their applications. We here report highlights and discussion points from the QfO meeting 2015 held in Barcelona. Achievements in recent years have established a basis to support developments for improved orthology prediction and to explore new approaches. Central to the QfO effort is proper benchmarking of methods and services, as well as design of standardized datasets and standardized formats to allow sharing and comparison of results. Simultaneously, analysis pipelines have been improved, evaluated and adapted to handle large datasets. All this would not have occurred without the long-term collaboration of Consortium members. Meeting regularly to review and coordinate complementary activities from a broad spectrum of innovative researchers clearly benefits the community. Highlights of the meeting include addressing sources of and legitimacy of disagreements between orthology calls, the context dependency of orthology definitions, special challenges encountered when analyzing very anciently rooted orthologies, orthology in the light of whole-genome duplications, and the concept of orthologous versus paralogous relationships at different levels, including domain-level orthology. Furthermore, particular needs for different applications (e.g. plant genomics, ancient gene families and others) and the infrastructure for making orthology inferences available (e.g. interfaces with model organism databases) were discussed, with several ongoing efforts that are expected to be reported on during the upcoming 2017 QfO meeting.

MOTIVATION: Accurate orthology inference is a fundamental step in many phylogenetics and comparative analysis. Many methods have been proposed, including OMA (Orthologous MAtrix). Yet substantial challenges remain, in particular in coping with fragmented genes or genes evolving at different rates after duplication, and in scaling to large datasets. With more and more genomes available, it is necessary to improve the scalability and robustness of orthology inference methods. RESULTS: We present improvements in the OMA algorithm: (i) refining the pairwise orthology inference step to account for same-species paralogs evolving at different rates, and (ii) minimizing errors in the pairwise orthology verification step by testing the consistency of pairwise distance estimates, which can be problematic in the presence of fragmentary sequences. In addition we introduce a more scalable procedure for hierarchical orthologous group (HOG) clustering, which are several orders of magnitude faster on large datasets. Using the Quest for Orthologs consortium orthology benchmark service, we show that these changes translate into substantial improvement on multiple empirical datasets. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: This new OMA 2.0 algorithm is used in the OMA database ( http://omabrowser.org ) from the March 2017 release onwards, and can be run on custom genomes using OMA standalone version 2.0 and above ( http://omabrowser.org/standalone ). CONTACT: [email protected] or [email protected].

The function of most proteins is not determined experimentally, but is extrapolated from homologs. According to the "ortholog conjecture", or standard model of phylogenomics, protein function changes rapidly after duplication, leading to paralogs with different functions, while orthologs retain the ancestral function. We report here that a comparison of experimentally supported functional annotations among homologs from 13 genomes mostly supports this model. We show that to analyze GO annotation effectively, several confounding factors need to be controlled: authorship bias, variation of GO term frequency among species, variation of background similarity among species pairs, and propagated annotation bias. After controlling for these biases, we observe that orthologs have generally more similar functional annotations than paralogs. This is especially strong for sub-cellular localization. We observe only a weak decrease in functional similarity with increasing sequence divergence. These findings hold over a large diversity of species; notably orthologs from model organisms such as E. coli, yeast or mouse have conserved function with human proteins.

Gene Ontology (GO) has established itself as the undisputed standard for protein function annotation. Most annotations are inferred electronically, i.e. without individual curator supervision, but they are widely considered unreliable. At the same time, we crucially depend on those automated annotations, as most newly sequenced genomes are non-model organisms. Here, we introduce a methodology to systematically and quantitatively evaluate electronic annotations. By exploiting changes in successive releases of the UniProt Gene Ontology Annotation database, we assessed the quality of electronic annotations in terms of specificity, reliability, and coverage. Overall, we not only found that electronic annotations have significantly improved in recent years, but also that their reliability now rivals that of annotations inferred by curators when they use evidence other than experiments from primary literature. This work provides the means to identify the subset of electronic annotations that can be relied upon-an important outcome given that >98% of all annotations are inferred without direct curation.

Accurate genome-wide identification of orthologs is a central problem in comparative genomics, a fact reflected by the numerous orthology identification projects developed in recent years. However, only a few reports have compared their accuracy, and indeed, several recent efforts have not yet been systematically evaluated. Furthermore, orthology is typically only assessed in terms of function conservation, despite the phylogeny-based original definition of Fitch. We collected and mapped the results of nine leading orthology projects and methods (COG, KOG, Inparanoid, OrthoMCL, Ensembl Compara, Homologene, RoundUp, EggNOG, and OMA) and two standard methods (bidirectional best-hit and reciprocal smallest distance). We systematically compared their predictions with respect to both phylogeny and function, using six different tests. This required the mapping of millions of sequences, the handling of hundreds of millions of predicted pairs of orthologs, and the computation of tens of thousands of trees. In phylogenetic analysis or in functional analysis where high specificity is required, we find that OMA and Homologene perform best. At lower functional specificity but higher coverage level, OrthoMCL outperforms Ensembl Compara, and to a lesser extent Inparanoid. Lastly, the large coverage of the recent EggNOG can be of interest to build broad functional grouping, but the method is not specific enough for phylogenetic or detailed function analyses. In terms of general methodology, we observe that the more sophisticated tree reconstruction/reconciliation approach of Ensembl Compara was at times outperformed by pairwise comparison approaches, even in phylogenetic tests. Furthermore, we show that standard bidirectional best-hit often outperforms projects with more complex algorithms. First, the present study provides guidance for the broad community of orthology data users as to which database best suits their needs. Second, it introduces new methodology to verify orthology. And third, it sets performance standards for current and future approaches.