A beginner's guide to eukaryotic genome annotation (original) (raw)

• Adams, M. D. et al. The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 287, 2185–2195 (2000).
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Celniker, S. E. et al. Finishing a whole-genome shotgun: release 3 of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome sequence. Genome Biol. 3, research0079 (2002).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Venter, J. C. et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science 291, 1304–1351 (2001).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature 431, 931–945 (2004).
• Denoeud, F. et al. Annotating genomes with massive-scale RNA sequencing. Genome Biol. 9, R175 (2008).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Ozsolak, F. et al. Direct RNA sequencing. Nature 461, 814–818 (2009).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Mortazavi, A., Williams, B. A., McCue, K., Schaeffer, L. & Wold, B. Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-seq. Nature Methods 5, 621–628 (2008).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Wang, E. T. et al. Alternative isoform regulation in human tissue transcriptomes. Nature 456, 470–476 (2008). This paper provides one of the most extensively documented surveys of alternatively spliced transcripts. It is a key publication for understanding how extensive alternative splicing is in human tissues, for understanding how powerful RNA-seq data are as a tool for discovering new transcripts and for quantifying their abundance and differential expression patterns.
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Chain, P. S. et al. Genomics. Genome project standards in a new era of sequencing. Science 326, 236–237 (2009).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Cantarel, B. L. et al. MAKER: an easy-to-use annotation pipeline designed for emerging model organism genomes. Genome Res. 18, 188–196 (2008).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Ye, L. et al. A vertebrate case study of the quality of assemblies derived from next-generation sequences. Genome Biol. 12, R31 (2011).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Parra, G., Bradnam, K. & Korf, I. CEGMA: a pipeline to accurately annotate core genes in eukaryotic genomes. Bioinformatics 23, 1061–1067 (2007).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Tsai, I. J., Otto, T. D. & Berriman, M. Improving draft assemblies by iterative mapping and assembly of short reads to eliminate gaps. Genome Biol. 11, R41 (2010).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Assefa, S., Keane, T. M., Otto, T. D., Newbold, C. & Berriman, M. ABACAS: algorithm-based automatic contiguation of assembled sequences. Bioinformatics 25, 1968–1969 (2009).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Husemann, P. & Stoye, J. r2cat: synteny plots and comparative assembly. Bioinformatics 26, 570–571 (2010).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Kapitonov, V. V. & Jurka, J. A novel class of SINE elements derived from 5S rRNA. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20, 694–702 (2003).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Kapitonov, V. V. & Jurka, J. A universal classification of eukaryotic transposable elements implemented in Repbase. Nature Rev. Genet. 9, 411–412; author reply 414 (2008).
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Lander, E. S. et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Buisine, N., Quesneville, H. & Colot, V. Improved detection and annotation of transposable elements in sequenced genomes using multiple reference sequence sets. Genomics 91, 467–475 (2008).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Han, Y. & Wessler, S. R. MITE-Hunter: a program for discovering miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements from genomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e199 (2010).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• McClure, M. A. et al. Automated characterization of potentially active retroid agents in the human genome. Genomics 85, 512–523 (2005).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Bao, Z. & Eddy, S. R. Automated de novo identification of repeat sequence families in sequenced genomes. Genome Res. 12, 1269–1276 (2002).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Price, A. L., Jones, N. C. & Pevzner, P. A. De novo identification of repeat families in large genomes. Bioinformatics 21 (Suppl. 1), i351–i358 (2005).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Smit, A. & Hubley, R. RepeatModeler 1.05. repeatmasker.org [online], (2011).
  Google Scholar
• Morgulis, A., Gertz, E. M., Schaffer, A. A. & Agarwala, R. WindowMasker: window-based masker for sequenced genomes. Bioinformatics 22, 134–141 (2006).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Treangen, T. J. & Salzberg, S. L. Repetitive DNA and next-generation sequencing: computational challenges and solutions. Nature Rev. Genet. 13, 36–46 (2012).
  CAS Google Scholar
• Bergman, C. M. & Quesneville, H. Discovering and detecting transposable elements in genome sequences. Brief. Bioinform. 8, 382–392 (2007).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Cordaux, R. & Batzer, M. A. The impact of retrotransposons on human genome evolution. Nature Rev. Genet. 10, 691–703 (2009).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Witherspoon, D. J. et al. Alu repeats increase local recombination rates. BMC Genomics 10, 530 (2009).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Smit, A. F., Hubley, R. & Green, P. RepeatMasker 3.0 repeatmasker.org [online], (1996–2010).
• Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Korf, I., Yandell, M. & Bedell, J. BLAST: an Essential Guide to the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool 339 (O'Reilly & Associates, 2003). Everyone involved with a genome project should be familiar with BLAST. Reference 31 is the original paper describing this tool. Reference 32 is an entire book describing BLAST and how it is used.
  Google Scholar
• Altschul, S. F. et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402 (1997).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Green, P. Crossmatch. A general purpose utility for comparing any two sets of DNA sequences. PHRAP [online], (1993–1996).
• Majoros, W. H. Methods for Computational Gene Prediction 2 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
  Google Scholar
• Camacho, C. et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 421 (2009).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Bairoch, A., Boeckmann, B., Ferro, S. & Gasteiger, E. Swiss-Prot: juggling between evolution and stability. Brief. Bioinform. 5, 39–55 (2004).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Boeckmann, B. et al. Protein variety and functional diversity: Swiss-Prot annotation in its biological context. C.R. Biol. 328, 882–899 (2005).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• The UniProt Consortium. Ongoing and future developments at the Universal Protein Resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D214–D219 (2011).
• Benson, D. A., Karsch-Mizrachi, I., Lipman, D. J., Ostell, J. & Sayers, E. W. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D26–D31 (2009).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Sayers, E. W. et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D5–D15 (2009).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Kent, W. J. BLAT—the BLAST-like alignment tool. Genome Res. 12, 656–664 (2002).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Slater, G. S. & Birney, E. Automated generation of heuristics for biological sequence comparison. BMC Bioinformatics 6, 31 (2005).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Kapustin, Y., Souvorov, A., Tatusova, T. & Lipman, D. Splign: algorithms for computing spliced alignments with identification of paralogs. Biol. Direct 3, 20 (2008).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Wheelan, S. J., Church, D. M. & Ostell, J. M. Spidey: a tool for mRNA-to-genomic alignments. Genome Res. 11, 1952–1957 (2001).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Florea, L., Hartzell, G., Zhang, Z., Rubin, G. M. & Miller, W. A computer program for aligning a cDNA sequence with a genomic DNA sequence. Genome Res. 8, 967–974 (1998).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Garber, M., Grabherr, M. G., Guttman, M. & Trapnell, C. Computational methods for transcriptome annotation and quantification using RNA-seq. Nature Methods 8, 469–477 (2011).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Simpson, J. T. et al. ABySS: a parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Res. 19, 1117–1123 (2009).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Li, R. et al. De novo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing. Genome Res. 20, 265–272 (2010).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Grabherr, M. G. et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-seq data without a reference genome. Nature Biotech. 29, 644–652 (2011). This paper describes Trinity, a transcriptome assembler that was specifically designed for next-generation sequence data. It is required reading for anyone trying to use RNA-seq data for genome annotation.
  CAS Google Scholar
• Trapnell, C., Pachter, L. & Salzberg, S. L. TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-seq. Bioinformatics 25, 1105–1111 (2009).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Wu, T. D. & Nacu, S. Fast and SNP-tolerant detection of complex variants and splicing in short reads. Bioinformatics 26, 873–881 (2010).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Guttman, M. et al. Ab initio reconstruction of cell type-specific transcriptomes in mouse reveals the conserved multi-exonic structure of lincRNAs. Nature Biotech. 28, 503–510 (2010).
  CAS Google Scholar
• Trapnell, C. et al. Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotech. 28, 511–515 (2010).
  CAS Google Scholar
• Trapnell, C. et al. Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks. Nature Protoc. 7, 562–578 (2012). This paper describes best practice approaches for combining TopHat and Cufflinks when using RNA-seq data for genome annotation.
  CAS Google Scholar
• Haas, B. J. et al. Improving the Arabidopsis genome annotation using maximal transcript alignment assemblies. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 5654–5666 (2003).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Guigo, R., Knudsen, S., Drake, N. & Smith, T. Prediction of gene structure. J. Mol. Biol. 226, 141–157 (1992).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Solovyev, V. V., Salamov, A. A. & Lawrence, C. B. The prediction of human exons by oligonucleotide composition and discriminant analysis of spliceable open reading frames. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Mol. Biol. 2, 354–362 (1994).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Burge, C. & Karlin, S. Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA. J. Mol. Biol. 268, 78–94 (1997). This study describes the ab initio gene predictor GenScan. It is a classic paper that is full of informative explanations of the problems associated with eukaryotic gene prediction.
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Reese, M. G., Kulp, D., Tammana, H. & Haussler, D. Genie—gene finding in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Res. 10, 529–538 (2000).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Brent, M. R. Genome annotation past, present, and future: how to define an ORF at each locus. Genome Res. 15, 1777–1786 (2005).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Korf, I. Gene finding in novel genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 5, 59 (2004). This paper describes a gene predictor, SNAP, that is easy to use and to configure. It also clearly explains the pitfalls that are associated with using a poorly trained gene finder or one that has been trained on a different genome from the one that is being annotated.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Reese, M. G. & Guigo, R. EGASP: Introduction. Genome Biol. 7 (Suppl. 1), 1–3 (2006). This is the introduction to an entire issue of Genome Biology that is dedicated to benchmarking an entire host of eukaryotic gene finders and annotation pipelines. Anyone involved with a genome annotation project should have a look at every paper in this special supplement.
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Coghlan, A. et al. nGASP—the nematode genome annotation assessment project. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 549 (2008).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Guigo, R. & Reese, M. G. EGASP: collaboration through competition to find human genes. Nature Methods 2, 575–577 (2005).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Stanke, M. & Waack, S. Gene prediction with a hidden Markov model and a new intron submodel. Bioinformatics 19 (Suppl. 2), ii215–ii225 (2003).
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Stanke, M., Schoffmann, O., Morgenstern, B. & Waack, S. Gene prediction in eukaryotes with a generalized hidden Markov model that uses hints from external sources. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 62 (2006).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Lukashin, A. V. & Borodovsky, M. GeneMark.hmm: new solutions for gene finding. Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 1107–1115 (1998).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Ter-Hovhannisyan, V., Lomsadze, A., Chernoff, Y. O. & Borodovsky, M. Gene prediction in novel fungal genomes using an ab initio algorithm with unsupervised training. Genome Res. 18, 1979–1990 (2008).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Zhu, W., Lomsadze, A. & Borodovsky, M. Ab initio gene identification in metagenomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e132 (2010).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Korf, I., Flicek, P., Duan, D. & Brent, M. R. Integrating genomic homology into gene structure prediction. Bioinformatics 17, S140–S148 (2001).
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Salamov, A. A. & Solovyev, V. V. Ab initio gene finding in Drosophila genomic DNA. Genome Res. 10, 516–522 (2000).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Souvorov, A. et al. Gnomon — the NCBI eukaryotic gene prediction tool. National Center for Biotechnology Information [online], (2010).
  Google Scholar
• Howe, K. L., Chothia, T. & Durbin, R. GAZE: a generic framework for the integration of gene-prediction data by dynamic programming. Genome Res. 12, 1418–1427 (2002).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Mungall, C. J. et al. An integrated computational pipeline and database to support whole-genome sequence annotation. Genome Biol. 3, research0081 (2002).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Misra, S. et al. Annotation of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome: a systematic review. Genome Biol. 3, research0083 (2002).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Yandell, M. et al. A computational and experimental approach to validating annotations and gene predictions in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 1566–1571 (2005).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Allen, J. E. & Salzberg, S. L. JIGSAW: integration of multiple sources of evidence for gene prediction. Bioinformatics 21, 3596–3603 (2005).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Haas, B. J. et al. Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using EVidenceModeler and the Program to Assemble Spliced Alignments. Genome Biol. 9, R7 (2008).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Elsik, C. G. et al. Creating a honey bee consensus gene set. Genome Biol. 8, R13 (2007).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Liu, Q., Mackey, A. J., Roos, D. S. & Pereira, F. C. Evigan: a hidden variable model for integrating gene evidence for eukaryotic gene prediction. Bioinformatics 24, 597–605 (2008).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Haas, B. J., Zeng, Q., Pearson, M. D., Cuomo, C. A. & Wortman, J. R. Approaches to fungal genome annotation. Mycology 2, 118–141 (2011). This paper provides an excellent description of the process used by the Broad Institute for fungal annotation. It is also a good resource for those seeking to learn more about PASA; for more information about PASA, see reference 56.
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Holt, C. & Yandell, M. MAKER2: an annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 491 (2011). This study describes the database management and annotation quality-control tools for the MAKER2 genome annotation pipeline. It also explains many of the challenges that are associated with annotating novel genomes and how to overcome them.
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Pearson, W. R. & Lipman, D. J. Improved tools for biological sequence comparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 85, 2444–2448 (1988).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Eilbeck, K. et al. The Sequence Ontology: a tool for the unification of genome annotations. Genome Biol. 6, R44 (2005).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Donlin, M. J. in Current Protocols in Bioinformatics. Ch. 9, Unit 9.9 (2007).
  Google Scholar
• Skinner, M. E., Uzilov, A. V., Stein, L. D., Mungall, C. J. & Holmes, I. H. JBrowse: a next-generation genome browser. Genome Res. 19, 1630–1638 (2009).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Stajich, J. E. et al. The Bioperl toolkit: Perl modules for the life sciences. Genome Res. 12, 1611–1618 (2002).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Zhou, P., Emmert, D. & Zhang, P. in Current Protocols in Bioinformatics Ch. 9, Unit 9.6 (2006).
  Google Scholar
• Klimke, W. et al. Solving the problem: genome annotation standards before the data deluge. Stand. Genomic Sci. 5, 168–193 (2011).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Brister, J. R. et al. Towards viral genome annotation standards, report from the 2010 NCBI annotation workshop. Viruses 2, 2258–2268 (2010).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Madupu, R. et al. Meeting report: a workshop on best practices in genome annotation. Database 2010, baq001 (2010).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Mulder, N. & Apweiler, R. InterPro and InterProScan: tools for protein sequence classification and comparison. Methods Mol. Biol. 396, 59–70 (2007).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Finn, R. D. et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, D211–D222 (2010).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Holt, C. Tools and Techniques for Genome Annotation Analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Utah (2011).
  Google Scholar
• Eilbeck, K., Moore, B., Holt, C. & Yandell, M. Quantitative measures for the management and comparison of annotated genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 67 (2009). This paper describes a number of annotation quality-control measures, including annotation edit distance (AED). It also provides some interesting meta-analyses describing the impact of curation efforts on the gene annotations of several model organism databases over a period of several years.
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Lewis, S. E. et al. Apollo: a sequence annotation editor. Genome Biol. 3, research0082 (2002).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Engels, R. Argo Genome Browser version 1.0.31. Broad Institute [online], (2010).
  Google Scholar
• Rutherford, K. et al. Artemis: sequence visualization and annotation. Bioinformatics 16, 944–945 (2000).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Hartl, D. L. Fly meets shotgun: shotgun wins. Nature Genet. 24, 327–328 (2000).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Desk, B. H. Introduction to the standalone WWW Blast server. National Center for Biotechnology Information [online], (2002). This page explains how to use a suite of programs to set up a local Blast server for your local database.
  Google Scholar
• Stein, L. D. et al. The generic genome browser: a building block for a model organism system database. Genome Res. 12, 1599–1610 (2002).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Munoz-Torres, M. C. et al. Hymenoptera Genome Database: integrated community resources for insect species of the order Hymenoptera. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D658–D662 (2011).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Smith, C. D. et al. Draft genome of the globally widespread and invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5673–5678 (2011).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Suen, G. et al. The genome sequence of the leaf-cutter ant Atta cephalotes reveals insights into its obligate symbiotic lifestyle. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002007 (2011).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Nygaard, S. et al. The genome of the leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex echinatior suggests key adaptations to advanced social life and fungus farming. Genome Res. 21, 1339–1348 (2011).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Curwen, V. et al. The Ensembl automatic gene annotation system. Genome Res. 14, 942–950 (2004). This paper describes the Ensembl genome annotation pipeline; although the article is now several years old, it is still a good place to start. We would recommend reading this paper and then browsing the extensive Ensembl web site for more information.
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Youens-Clark, K. et al. Gramene database in 2010: updates and extensions. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D1085–D1094 (2011).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Duvick, J. et al. PlantGDB: a resource for comparative plant genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D959–D965 (2008).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Goodstein, D. M. et al. Phytozome: a comparative platform for green plant genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D1178–D1186 (2012).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Lawson, D. et al. VectorBase: a data resource for invertebrate vector genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D583–D587 (2009).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Karro, J. E. et al. Pseudogene.org: a comprehensive database and comparison platform for pseudogene annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D55–D60 (2007).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Zheng, D. et al. Integrated pseudogene annotation for human chromosome 22: evidence for transcription. J. Mol. Biol. 349, 27–45 (2005).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Griffiths-Jones, S., Bateman, A., Marshall, M., Khanna, A. & Eddy, S. R. Rfam: an RNA family database. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 439–441 (2003).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Lagesen, K. et al. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, 3100–3108 (2007).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Dolezel, J. & Bartos, J. Plant DNA flow cytometry and estimation of nuclear genome size. Ann. Botany 95, 99–110 (2005).
  CAS Google Scholar
• Laird, C. D. & McCarthy, B. J. Molecular characterization of the Drosophila genome. Genetics 63, 865–882 (1969).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Lowe, T. M. & Eddy, S. R. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 955–964 (1997).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Schattner, P., Brooks, A. N. & Lowe, T. M. The tRNAscan-SE, snoscan and snoGPS web servers for the detection of tRNAs and snoRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, W686–W689 (2005).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Lewis, B. P., Shih, I. H., Jones-Rhoades, M. W., Bartel, D. P. & Burge, C. B. Prediction of mammalian microRNA targets. Cell 115, 787–798 (2003).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Eddy, S. R. A memory-efficient dynamic programming algorithm for optimal alignment of a sequence to an RNA secondary structure. BMC Bioinformatics 3, 18 (2002).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Holmes, I. & Rubin, G. M. Pairwise RNA structure comparison with stochastic context-free grammars. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 7, 163–174 (2002).
  Google Scholar
• QIAGEN. Quick-Start Protocol miRNAeasy Mini Kit. QIAGEN [online], (2011).
• Chen, C. et al. Real-time quantification of microRNAs by stem–loop RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, e179 (2005).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• van Leeuwen, S. & Mikkers, H. Long non-coding RNAs: guardians of development. Differentiation 80, 175–183 (2010).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Hung., T. & Chang, H. Y. Long noncoding RNA in genome regulation: prospects and mechanisms. RNA Biol. 7, 582–585 (2010).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Tam, O. H. et al. Pseudogene-derived small interfering RNAs regulate gene expression in mouse oocytes. Nature 453, 534–538 (2008).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Zhang, Z., Carriero, N. & Gerstein, M. Comparative analysis of processed pseudogenes in the mouse and human genomes. Trends Genet. 20, 62–67 (2004).
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Nawrocki, E. P., Kolbe, D. L. & Eddy, S. R. Infernal 1.0: inference of RNA alignments. Bioinformatics 25, 1335–1337 (2009).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Burset, M. & Guigo, R. Evaluation of gene structure prediction programs. Genomics 34, 353–367 (1996). This paper provides an excellent explanation of how sensitivity and specificity measures can be used to evaluate gene finder performance. This is a classic paper in the field and should be read by anyone involved in gene annotation.
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Baldi, P., Brunak, S., Chauvin, Y., Andersen, C. A. & Nielsen, H. Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: an overview. Bioinformatics 16, 412–424 (2000).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Guigo, R. et al. EGASP: the human ENCODE Genome Annotation Assessment Project. Genome Biol. 7 (Suppl. 1), 1–31 (2006).
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Schweikert, G. et al. mGene: accurate SVM-based gene finding with an application to nematode genomes. Genome Res. 19, 2133–2143 (2009).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Parra, G., Blanco, E. & Guigo, R. GeneID in Drosophila. Genome Res. 10, 511–515 (2000).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Yeh, R. F., Lim, L. P. & Burge, C. B. Computational inference of homologous gene structures in the human genome. Genome Res. 11, 803–816 (2001).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• DeCaprio, D. et al. Conrad: gene prediction using conditional random fields. Genome Res. 17, 1389–1398 (2007).
  CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Gross, S. S., Do, C. B., Sirota, M. & Batzoglou, S. CONTRAST: a discriminative, phylogeny-free approach to multiple informant de novo gene prediction. Genome Biol. 8, R269 (2007).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Bernal, A., Crammer, K., Hatzigeorgiou, A. & Pereira, F. Global discriminative learning for higher-accuracy computational gene prediction. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e54 (2007).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Usuka, J., Zhu, W. & Brendel, V. Optimal spliced alignment of homologous cDNA to a genomic DNA template. Bioinformatics 16, 203–211 (2000).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Kiryutin, B. ProSplign. National Center for Biotechnology Information [online], (2011).
  Google Scholar
• Wang, K. et al. MapSplice: accurate mapping of RNA-seq reads for splice junction discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e178 (2010).
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Kitts, P. in The NCBI Handbook (ed. McEntyre, J. & Ostell, J.) (National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2003).
  Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. T. et al. Integrative genomics viewer. Nature Biotech. 29, 24–26 (2011).
  CAS Google Scholar