Search for: All records

Abstract PremiseRobust standards to evaluate quality and completeness are lacking in eukaryotic structural genome annotation, as genome annotation software is developed using model organisms and typically lacks benchmarking to comprehensively evaluate the quality and accuracy of the final predictions. The annotation of plant genomes is particularly challenging due to their large sizes, abundant transposable elements, and variable ploidies. This study investigates the impact of genome quality, complexity, sequence read input, and method on protein‐coding gene predictions. MethodsThe impact of repeat masking, long‐read and short‐read inputs, and de novo and genome‐guided protein evidence was examined in the context of the popular BRAKER and MAKER workflows for five plant genomes. The annotations were benchmarked for structural traits and sequence similarity. ResultsBenchmarks that reflect gene structures, reciprocal similarity search alignments, and mono‐exonic/multi‐exonic gene counts provide a more complete view of annotation accuracy. Transcripts derived from RNA‐read alignments alone are not sufficient for genome annotation. Gene prediction workflows that combine evidence‐based and ab initio approaches are recommended, and a combination of short and long reads can improve genome annotation. Adding protein evidence from de novo assemblies, genome‐guided transcriptome assemblies, or full‐length proteins from OrthoDB generates more putative false positives as implemented in the current workflows. Post‐processing with functional and structural filters is highly recommended. DiscussionWhile the annotation of non‐model plant genomes remains complex, this study provides recommendations for inputs and methodological approaches. We discuss a set of best practices to generate an optimal plant genome annotation and present a more robust set of metrics to evaluate the resulting predictions. 

Abstract Genome sequencing projects routinely generate haploid consensus sequences from diploid genomes, which are effectively chimeric sequences with the phase at heterozygous sites resolved at random. The impact of phasing errors on phylogenomic analyses under the multispecies coalescent (MSC) model is largely unknown. Here, we conduct a computer simulation to evaluate the performance of four phase-resolution strategies (the true phase resolution, the diploid analytical integration algorithm which averages over all phase resolutions, computational phase resolution using the program PHASE, and random resolution) on estimation of the species tree and evolutionary parameters in analysis of multilocus genomic data under the MSC model. We found that species tree estimation is robust to phasing errors when species divergences were much older than average coalescent times but may be affected by phasing errors when the species tree is shallow. Estimation of parameters under the MSC model with and without introgression is affected by phasing errors. In particular, random phase resolution causes serious overestimation of population sizes for modern species and biased estimation of cross-species introgression probability. In general, the impact of phasing errors is greater when the mutation rate is higher, the data include more samples per species, and the species tree is shallower with recent divergences. Use of phased sequences inferred by the PHASE program produced small biases in parameter estimates. We analyze two real data sets, one of East Asian brown frogs and another of Rocky Mountains chipmunks, to demonstrate that heterozygote phase-resolution strategies have similar impacts on practical data analyses. We suggest that genome sequencing projects should produce unphased diploid genotype sequences if fully phased data are too challenging to generate, and avoid haploid consensus sequences, which have heterozygous sites phased at random. In case the analytical integration algorithm is computationally unfeasible, computational phasing prior to population genomic analyses is an acceptable alternative. [BPP; introgression; multispecies coalescent; phase; species tree.]