Irene T. Liao, Karen E. Sears, Lena C. Hileman, Lachezar A. Nikolov
{"title":"Different orthology inference algorithms generate similar predicted orthogroups among Brassicaceae species","authors":"Irene T. Liao, Karen E. Sears, Lena C. Hileman, Lachezar A. Nikolov","doi":"10.1002/aps3.11627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Premise</h3>\n \n <p>Orthology inference is crucial for comparative genomics, and multiple algorithms have been developed to identify putative orthologs for downstream analyses. Despite the abundance of proposed solutions, including publicly available benchmarks, it is difficult to assess which tool is most suitable for plant species, which commonly have complex genomic histories.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We explored the performance of four orthology inference algorithms—OrthoFinder, SonicParanoid, Broccoli, and OrthNet—on eight Brassicaceae genomes in two groups: one group comprising only diploids and another set comprising the diploids, two mesopolyploids, and one recent hexaploid genome.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The composition of the orthogroups reflected the species' ploidy and genomic histories, with the diploid set having a higher proportion of identical orthogroups. While the diploid + higher ploidy set had a lower proportion of orthogroups with identical compositions, the average degree of similarity between the orthogroups was not different from the diploid set.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Three algorithms—OrthoFinder, SonicParanoid, and Broccoli—are helpful for initial orthology predictions. Results produced using OrthNet were generally outliers but could still provide detailed information about gene colinearity. With our Brassicaceae dataset, slight discrepancies were found across the orthology inference algorithms, necessitating additional analyses such as tree inference to fine-tune results.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8022,"journal":{"name":"Applications in Plant Sciences","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aps3.11627","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applications in Plant Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aps3.11627","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Premise
Orthology inference is crucial for comparative genomics, and multiple algorithms have been developed to identify putative orthologs for downstream analyses. Despite the abundance of proposed solutions, including publicly available benchmarks, it is difficult to assess which tool is most suitable for plant species, which commonly have complex genomic histories.
Methods
We explored the performance of four orthology inference algorithms—OrthoFinder, SonicParanoid, Broccoli, and OrthNet—on eight Brassicaceae genomes in two groups: one group comprising only diploids and another set comprising the diploids, two mesopolyploids, and one recent hexaploid genome.
Results
The composition of the orthogroups reflected the species' ploidy and genomic histories, with the diploid set having a higher proportion of identical orthogroups. While the diploid + higher ploidy set had a lower proportion of orthogroups with identical compositions, the average degree of similarity between the orthogroups was not different from the diploid set.
Discussion
Three algorithms—OrthoFinder, SonicParanoid, and Broccoli—are helpful for initial orthology predictions. Results produced using OrthNet were generally outliers but could still provide detailed information about gene colinearity. With our Brassicaceae dataset, slight discrepancies were found across the orthology inference algorithms, necessitating additional analyses such as tree inference to fine-tune results.
期刊介绍:
Applications in Plant Sciences (APPS) is a monthly, peer-reviewed, open access journal promoting the rapid dissemination of newly developed, innovative tools and protocols in all areas of the plant sciences, including genetics, structure, function, development, evolution, systematics, and ecology. Given the rapid progress today in technology and its application in the plant sciences, the goal of APPS is to foster communication within the plant science community to advance scientific research. APPS is a publication of the Botanical Society of America, originating in 2009 as the American Journal of Botany''s online-only section, AJB Primer Notes & Protocols in the Plant Sciences.
APPS publishes the following types of articles: (1) Protocol Notes describe new methods and technological advancements; (2) Genomic Resources Articles characterize the development and demonstrate the usefulness of newly developed genomic resources, including transcriptomes; (3) Software Notes detail new software applications; (4) Application Articles illustrate the application of a new protocol, method, or software application within the context of a larger study; (5) Review Articles evaluate available techniques, methods, or protocols; (6) Primer Notes report novel genetic markers with evidence of wide applicability.