Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

McNair, Katelyn

Publications and source records attributed to McNair, Katelyn.

Philympics 2021: Prophage Predictions Perplex Programs

Most bacterial genomes contain integrated bacteriophages—prophages—in various states of decay. Many are active and able to excise from the genome and replicate, while others are cryptic prophages, remnants of their former selves. Over the last two decades, many computational tools have been developed to identify the prophage components of bacterial genomes, and it is a particularly active area for the application of machine learning approaches. However, progress is hindered and comparisons thwarted because there are no manually curated bacterial genomes that can be used to test new prophage prediction algorithms. Here, we present a library of gold-standard bacterial genome annotations that include manually curated prophage annotations, and a computational framework to compare the predictions from different algorithms. We use this suite to compare all extant stand-alone prophage prediction algorithms to identify their strengths and weaknesses. We provide a FAIR dataset for prophage identification, and demonstrate the accuracy, precision, recall, and f 1 score from the analysis of seven different algorithms for the prediction of prophages. We discuss caveats and concerns in this analysis and how those concerns may be mitigated.

Roach, Michael J.↗

MultiPhATE2: code for functional annotation and comparison of phage genomes

To address a need for improved tools for annotation and comparative genomics of bacteriophage genomes, we developed multiPhATE2. As an extension of multiPhATE, a functional annotation code released previously, multiPhATE2 performs gene finding using multiple algorithms, compares the results of the algorithms, performs functional annotation of coding sequences, and incorporates additional search algorithms and databases to extend the search space of the original code. MultiPhATE2 performs gene matching among sets of closely related bacteriophage genomes, and uses multiprocessing to speed computations. MultiPhATE2 can be re-started at multiple points within the workflow to allow the user to examine intermediate results and adjust the subsequent computations accordingly. In addition, multiPhATE2 accommodates custom gene calls and sequence databases, again adding flexibility. MultiPhATE2 was implemented in Python 3.7 and runs as a command-line code under Linux or MAC operating systems. Full documentation is provided as a README file and a Wiki website.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

Utilizing Amino Acid Composition and Entropy of Potential Open Reading Frames to Identify Protein-Coding Genes

One of the main steps in gene-finding in prokaryotes is determining which open reading frames encode for a protein, and which occur by chance alone. There are many different methods to differentiate the two; the most prevalent approach is using shared homology with a database of known genes. This method presents many pitfalls, most notably the catch that you only find genes that you have seen before. The four most popular prokaryotic gene-prediction programs (GeneMark, Glimmer, Prodigal, Phanotate) all use a protein-coding training model to predict protein-coding genes, with the latter three allowing for the training model to be created ab initio from the input genome. Different methods are available for creating the training model, and to increase the accuracy of such tools, we present here GOODORFS, a method for identifying protein-coding genes within a set of all possible open reading frames (ORFS). Our workflow begins with taking the amino acid frequencies of each ORF, calculating an entropy density profile (EDP), using KMeans to cluster the EDPs, and then selecting the cluster with the lowest variation as the coding ORFs. To test the efficacy of our method, we ran GOODORFS on 14,179 annotated phage genomes, and compared our results to the initial training-set creation step of four other similar methods (Glimmer, MED2, PHANOTATE, Prodigal). We found that GOODORFS was the most accurate (0.94) and had the best F1-score (0.85), while Glimmer had the highest precision (0.92) and PHANOTATE had the highest recall (0.96).

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗