Combining gene prediction methods to improve metagenomic gene annotation.

BACKGROUND: Traditional gene annotation methods rely on characteristics that may not be available in short reads generated from next generation technology, resulting in suboptimal performance for metagenomic (environmental) samples. Therefore, in recent years, new programs have been developed that optimize performance on short reads. In this work, we benchmark three metagenomic gene prediction programs and combine their predictions to improve metagenomic read gene annotation. RESULTS: We not only analyze the programs' performance at different read-lengths like similar studies, but also separate different types of reads, including intra- and intergenic regions, for analysis. The main deficiencies are in the algorithms' ability to predict non-coding regions and gene edges, resulting in more false-positives and false-negatives than desired. In fact, the specificities of the algorithms are notably worse than the sensitivities. By combining the programs' predictions, we show significant improvement in specificity at minimal cost to sensitivity, resulting in 4% improvement in accuracy for 100 bp reads with ~1% improvement in accuracy for 200 bp reads and above. To correctly annotate the start and stop of the genes, we find that a consensus of all the predictors performs best for shorter read lengths while a unanimous agreement is better for longer read lengths, boosting annotation accuracy by 1-8%. We also demonstrate use of the classifier combinations on a real dataset. CONCLUSIONS: To optimize the performance for both prediction and annotation accuracies, we conclude that the consensus of all methods (or a majority vote) is the best for reads 400 bp and shorter, while using the intersection of GeneMark and Orphelia predictions is the best for reads 500 bp and longer. We demonstrate that most methods predict over 80% coding (including partially coding) reads on a real human gut sample sequenced by Illumina technology.

Benchmarking of gene prediction programs for metagenomic data.

This manuscript presents the most rigorous benchmarking of gene annotation algorithms for metagenomic datasets to date. We compare three different programs: GeneMark, MetaGeneAnnotator (MGA) and Orphelia. The comparisons are based on their performances over simulated fragments from one hundred species of diverse lineages. We defined four different types of fragments; two types come from the inter- and intra-coding regions and the other types are from the gene edges. Hoff et al. used only 12 species in their comparison; therefore, their sample is too small to represent an environmental sample. Also, no predecessors has separately examined fragments that contain gene edges as opposed to intra-coding regions. General observations in our results are that performances of all these programs improve as we increase the length of the fragment. On the other hand, intra-coding fragments of our data show low annotation error in all of the programs if compared to the gene edge fragments. Overall, we found an upper-bound performance by combining all the methods.

Signal processing for metagenomics: extracting information from the soup.

Traditionally, studies in microbial genomics have focused on single-genomes from cultured species, thereby limiting their focus to the small percentage of species that can be cultured outside their natural environment. Fortunately, recent advances in high-throughput sequencing and computational analyses have ushered in the new field of metagenomics, which aims to decode the genomes of microbes from natural communities without the need for cultivation. Although metagenomic studies have shed a great deal of insight into bacterial diversity and coding capacity, several computational challenges remain due to the massive size and complexity of metagenomic sequence data. Current tools and techniques are reviewed in this paper which address challenges in 1) genomic fragment annotation, 2) phylogenetic reconstruction, 3) functional classification of samples, and 4) interpreting complementary metaproteomics and metametabolomics data. Also surveyed are important applications of metagenomic studies, including microbial forensics and the roles of microbial communities in shaping human health and soil ecology.