The Impact of Gene Duplication, Insertion, Deletion, Lateral Gene Transfer and Sequencing Error on Orthology Inference: A Simulation Study

The identification of orthologous genes, a prerequisite for numerous analyses in comparative and functional genomics, is commonly performed computationally from protein sequences. Several previous studies have compared the accuracy of orthology inference methods, but simulated data has not typically been considered in cross-method assessment studies. Yet, while dependent on model assumptions, simulation-based benchmarking offers unique advantages: contrary to empirical data, all aspects of simulated data are known with certainty. Furthermore, the flexibility of simulation makes it possible to investigate performance factors in isolation of one another. Here, we use simulated data to dissect the performance of six methods for orthology inference available as standalone software packages (Inparanoid, OMA, OrthoInspector, OrthoMCL, QuartetS, SPIMAP) as well as two generic approaches (bidirectional best hit and reciprocal smallest distance). We investigate the impact of various evolutionary forces (gene duplication, insertion, deletion, and lateral gene transfer) and technological artefacts (ambiguous sequences) on orthology inference. We show that while gene duplication/loss and insertion/deletion are well handled by most methods (albeit for different trade-offs of precision and recall), lateral gene transfer disrupts all methods. As for ambiguous sequences, which might result from poor sequencing, assembly, or genome annotation, we show that they affect alignment score-based orthology methods more strongly than their distance-based counterparts.

[1]  S. Whelan,et al.  A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum-likelihood approach. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[2]  Ioannis Xenarios,et al.  Conceptual framework and pilot study to benchmark phylogenomic databases based on reference gene trees , 2011, Briefings Bioinform..

[3]  Gaston H. Gonnet,et al.  Inferring Hierarchical Orthologous Groups from Orthologous Gene Pairs , 2013, PloS one.

[4]  J. Reifman,et al.  QuartetS: a fast and accurate algorithm for large-scale orthology detection , 2011, Nucleic acids research.

[5]  Gaston H. Gonnet,et al.  OMA 2011: orthology inference among 1000 complete genomes , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  Gaston H. Gonnet,et al.  Algorithm of OMA for large-scale orthology inference , 2008, BMC bioinformatics.

[7]  Javier Herrero,et al.  Toward community standards in the quest for orthologs , 2012, Bioinform..

[8]  Alexander C. J. Roth,et al.  Detecting non-orthology in the COGs database and other approaches grouping orthologs using genome-specific best hits , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[9]  A. Rokas,et al.  Evaluating Ortholog Prediction Algorithms in a Yeast Model Clade , 2011, PloS one.

[10]  Olivier Poch,et al.  OrthoInspector: comprehensive orthology analysis and visual exploration , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[11]  Arcady R. Mushegian,et al.  Computational methods for Gene Orthology inference , 2011, Briefings Bioinform..

[12]  Christophe Dessimoz,et al.  Resolving the Ortholog Conjecture: Orthologs Tend to Be Weakly, but Significantly, More Similar in Function than Paralogs , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[13]  Jianzhi Zhang.  Evolution by gene duplication: an update , 2003 .

[14]  M. Huynen,et al.  Benchmarking ortholog identification methods using functional genomics data , 2006, Genome Biology.

[15]  Eric Depiereux,et al.  2× genomes - depth does matter , 2010, Genome Biology.

[16]  Tal Dagan,et al.  Modular networks and cumulative impact of lateral transfer in prokaryote genome evolution , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Dr. Susumu Ohno.  Evolution by Gene Duplication , 1970, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[18]  Otto X. Cordero,et al.  Ecology drives a global network of gene exchange connecting the human microbiome , 2011, Nature.

[19]  J. Lagergren,et al.  Probabilistic orthology analysis. , 2009, Systematic biology.

[20]  E. Koonin.  Orthologs, Paralogs, and Evolutionary Genomics 1 , 2005 .

[21]  E. Koonin.  Orthologs, paralogs, and evolutionary genomics. , 2005, Annual review of genetics.

[22]  Christophe Dessimoz,et al.  Phylogenetic and Functional Assessment of Orthologs Inference Projects and Methods , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[23]  J. Huelsenbeck.  Performance of Phylogenetic Methods in Simulation , 1995 .

[24]  G. Gonnet,et al.  Empirical and structural models for insertions and deletions in the divergent evolution of proteins. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  P. Bork,et al.  Orthology prediction methods: A quality assessment using curated protein families , 2011, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[26]  Manolis Kellis,et al.  A Bayesian Approach for Fast and Accurate Gene Tree Reconstruction , 2010, Molecular biology and evolution.

[27]  Christophe Dessimoz,et al.  Inferring orthology and paralogy. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[28]  C. Stoeckert,et al.  OrthoMCL: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. , 2003, Genome research.

[29]  G. Gonnet,et al.  ALF—A Simulation Framework for Genome Evolution , 2011, Molecular biology and evolution.

[30]  L. Boto.  Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  Christian E. V. Storm,et al.  Automatic clustering of orthologs and in-paralogs from pairwise species comparisons. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.