Effect of the mutation rate and background size on the quality of pathogen identification

MOTIVATION Genomic-based methods have significant potential for fast and accurate identification of organisms or even genes of interest in complex environmental samples (air, water, soil, food, etc.), especially when isolation of the target organism cannot be performed by a variety of reasons. Despite this potential, the presence of the unknown, variable and usually large quantities of background DNA can cause interference resulting in false positive outcomes. RESULTS In order to estimate how the genomic diversity of the background (total length of all of the different genomes present in the background), target length and target mutation rate affect the probability of misidentifications, we introduce a mathematical definition for the quality of an individual signature in the presence of a background based on its length and number of mismatches needed to transform the signature into the closest subsequence present in the background. This definition, in conjunction with a probabilistic framework, allows one to predict the minimal signature length required to identify the target in the presence of different sizes of backgrounds and the effect of the target's mutation rate on the quality of its identification. The model assumptions and predictions were validated using both Monte Carlo simulations and real genomic data examples. The proposed model can be used to determine appropriate signature lengths for various combinations of target and background genome sizes. It also predicted that any genomic signatures will be unable to identify target if its mutation rate is >5%. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

[1]  Jain-Shing Wu,et al.  Primer design using genetic algorithm , 2004, Bioinform..

[2]  Gary Benson,et al.  Sequence analysis Oligonucleotide fingerprint identification for microarray-based pathogen diagnostic assays , 2006 .

[3]  Sven Rahmann Fast and sensitive probe selection for DNA chips using jumps in matching statistics , 2003, Computational Systems Bioinformatics. CSB2003. Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Bioinformatics Conference. CSB2003.

[4]  Jaques Reifman,et al.  Identification of Genomic Signatures for the Design of Assays for the Detection and Monitoring of Anthrax Threats , 2004, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[5]  Matthew I. Bellgard,et al.  Intragenic Variation of Synonymous Substitution Rates Is Caused by Nonrandom Mutations at Methylated CpG , 2001, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[6]  P. Deschavanne,et al.  Genomic signature: characterization and classification of species assessed by chaos game representation of sequences. , 1999, Molecular biology and evolution.

[7]  William Amos,et al.  Evidence for Widespread Convergent Evolution around Human Microsatellites , 2004, PLoS biology.

[8]  K Nishikawa,et al.  Differences in dinucleotide frequencies of human, yeast, and Escherichia coli genes. , 1997, DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes.

[9]  J. Patrick Fitch,et al.  Rapid development of nucleic acid diagnostics , 2002, Proc. IEEE.

[10]  R. Sandberg,et al.  Capturing whole-genome characteristics in short sequences using a naïve Bayesian classifier. , 2001, Genome research.

[11]  S Karlin,et al.  Compositional biases of bacterial genomes and evolutionary implications , 1997, Journal of bacteriology.

[12]  K Nishikawa,et al.  Genes from nine genomes are separated into their organisms in the dinucleotide composition space. , 1998, DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes.

[13]  D. Haussler,et al.  Hotspots of mammalian chromosomal evolution , 2004, Genome Biology.

[14]  D. Mindell Fundamentals of molecular evolution , 1991 .

[15]  R Nussinov,et al.  Doublet frequencies in evolutionary distinct groups. , 1984, Nucleic acids research.

[16]  F. Collins,et al.  Mutations in the p53 gene occur in diverse human tumour types , 1989, Nature.

[17]  C Putonti,et al.  The theoretical basis of universal identification systems for bacteria and viruses. , 2005, Journal of biological physics and chemistry : JBPC.

[18]  Z. Gu,et al.  Evolutionary analyses of the human genome , 2001, Nature.

[19]  Yi Luo,et al.  How independent are the appearances of n-mers in different genomes? , 2004, Bioinform..

[20]  International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome , 2001, Nature.

[21]  S. Karlin,et al.  Genome signature comparisons among prokaryote, plasmid, and mitochondrial DNA. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Adam Zemla,et al.  Comparative Genomics Tools Applied to Bioterrorism Defence , 2003, Briefings Bioinform..

[23]  A. Eyre-Walker Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution (2nd edn) , 2000, Heredity.

[24]  Scott J. Emrich,et al.  PROBEmer: a web-based software tool for selecting optimal DNA oligos , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[25]  S Karlin,et al.  Comparisons of eukaryotic genomic sequences. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Yuriy Fofanov,et al.  Human‐blind probes and primers for dengue virus identification , 2006, The FEBS journal.

[27]  Wen-Hsiung Li,et al.  Fundamentals of molecular evolution , 1990 .

[28]  K. Schleifer,et al.  Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. , 1995, Microbiological reviews.

[29]  Adam M. Phillippy,et al.  Comprehensive DNA Signature Discovery and Validation , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[30]  Caleb Webber,et al.  Hotspots of mutation and breakage in dog and human chromosomes. , 2005, Genome research.

[31]  Nicolas Galtier,et al.  Mutation hot spots in mammalian mitochondrial DNA. , 2005, Genome research.

[32]  Michael Wagner,et al.  Oligonucleotide microarray for identification of Enterococcus species. , 2005, FEMS microbiology letters.

[33]  S. Karlin,et al.  Global dinucleotide signatures and analysis of genomic heterogeneity. , 1998, Current opinion in microbiology.