↓ Skip to main content

Using phylogenetically-informed annotation (PIA) to search for light-interacting genes in transcriptomes from non-model organisms

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using phylogenetically-informed annotation (PIA) to search for light-interacting genes in transcriptomes from non-model organisms
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12859-014-0350-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel I Speiser, M Sabrina Pankey, Alexander K Zaharoff, Barbara A Battelle, Heather D Bracken-Grissom, Jesse W Breinholt, Seth M Bybee, Thomas W Cronin, Anders Garm, Annie R Lindgren, Nipam H Patel, Megan L Porter, Meredith E Protas, Ajna S Rivera, Jeanne M Serb, Kirk S Zigler, Keith A Crandall, Todd H Oakley

Abstract

BackgroundTools for high throughput sequencing and de novo assembly make the analysis of transcriptomes (i.e. the suite of genes expressed in a tissue) feasible for almost any organism. Yet a challenge for biologists is that it can be difficult to assign identities to gene sequences, especially from non-model organisms. Phylogenetic analyses are one useful method for assigning identities to these sequences, but such methods tend to be time-consuming because of the need to re-calculate trees for every gene of interest and each time a new data set is analyzed. In response, we employed existing tools for phylogenetic analysis to produce a computationally efficient, tree-based approach for annotating transcriptomes or new genomes that we term Phylogenetically-Informed Annotation (PIA), which places uncharacterized genes into pre-calculated phylogenies of gene families.ResultsWe generated maximum likelihood trees for 109 genes from a Light Interaction Toolkit (LIT), a collection of genes that underlie the function or development of light-interacting structures in metazoans. To do so, we searched protein sequences predicted from 30 fully-sequenced genomes and built trees using tools for phylogenetic analysis in the Osiris package of Galaxy (an open-source workflow management system). Next, to rapidly annotate transcriptomes from organisms that lack sequenced genomes, we repurposed a maximum likelihood-based Evolutionary Placement Algorithm (implemented in RAxML) to place sequences of potential LIT genes on to our pre-calculated gene trees. Finally, we implemented PIA in Galaxy and used it to search for LIT genes in 28 newly-sequenced transcriptomes from the light-interacting tissues of a range of cephalopod mollusks, arthropods, and cubozoan cnidarians. Our new trees for LIT genes are available on the Bitbucket public repository (http://bitbucket.org/osiris_phylogenetics/pia/) and we demonstrate PIA on a publicly-accessible web server (http://galaxy-dev.cnsi.ucsb.edu/pia/).ConclusionsOur new trees for LIT genes will be a valuable resource for researchers studying the evolution of eyes or other light-interacting structures. We also introduce PIA, a high throughput method for using phylogenetic relationships to identify LIT genes in transcriptomes from non-model organisms. With simple modifications, our methods may be used to search for different sets of genes or to annotate data sets from taxa outside of Metazoa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 133 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 29%
Researcher 27 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Master 14 10%
Other 7 5%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 68 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 18%
Computer Science 8 6%
Environmental Science 5 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 1%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 18 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,835,568
of 24,378,986 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#850
of 7,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,430
of 372,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#17
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,378,986 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.