Systematic comparison of genome information processing and boundary recognition tools used for genomic island detection.

Boundary detection Divergence measure Feature selection Genomic island detection Genomic signature

Journal

Computers in biology and medicine
ISSN: 1879-0534
Titre abrégé: Comput Biol Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1250250

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Sep 2023
Historique:
received: 11 07 2023
revised: 12 09 2023
accepted: 28 09 2023
medline: 13 10 2023
pubmed: 13 10 2023
entrez: 12 10 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Genomic islands are fragments of foreign DNA that are found in bacterial and archaeal genomes, and are typically associated with symbiosis or pathogenesis. While numerous genomic island detection methods have been proposed, there has been limited evaluation of the efficiency of the genome information processing and boundary recognition tools. In this study, we conducted a review of the statistical methods involved in genomic signatures, host signature extraction, informative signature selection, divergence measures, and boundary detection steps in genomic island prediction. We compared the performances of these methods on simulated experiments using alien fragments obtained from both artificial and real genomes. Our results indicate that among the nine genomic signatures evaluated, genomic signature frequency and full probability performed the best. However, their performance declined when normalized to their expectations and variances, such as Z-score and composition vector. Based on our experiments of the E. coli genome, we found that the confidence intervals of the window variances achieved the best performance in the signature extraction of the host, with the best confidence interval being 1.5-2 times the standard error. Ordered kurtosis was most effective in selecting informative signatures from a single genome, without requiring prior knowledge from other datasets. Among the three divergence measures evaluated, the two-sample t-test was the most successful, and a non-overlapping window with a small eye window (size 2) was best suited for identifying compositionally distinct regions. Finally, the maximum of the Markovian Jensen-Shannon divergence score, in terms of GC-content bias, was found to make boundary detection faster while maintaining a similar error rate.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37826950
pii: S0010-4825(23)01015-6
doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107550
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

107550

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest None declared.

Auteurs

Xiangting Guo (X)

Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310018, China.

Yichu Guo (Y)

Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310018, China.

Hu Chen (H)

Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310018, China.

Xiaoqing Liu (X)

College of Sciences, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, 310018, China.

Pingan He (P)

Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310018, China.

Wenshu Li (W)

Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310018, China.

Michael Q Zhang (MQ)

Center for Systems Biology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA; Center for Synthetic and Systems Biology, TNLIST, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China.

Qi Dai (Q)

Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310018, China; Center for Systems Biology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA. Electronic address: daiqi@zstu.edu.cn.

Classifications MeSH