Publication Date: 28 Oct 2009
Type: Original Research
Journal: Bioinformatics and Biology Insights
doi: 10.4137/BBI.S3030
In this report, we compared the success rate of classification of coding sequences (CDS) vs. introns by Codon Structure Factor (CSF) and by a method that we called Universal Feature Method (UFM). UFM is based on the scoring of purine bias (Rrr) and stop codon frequency. We show that the success rate of CDS/intron classification by UFM is higher than by CSF. UFM classifies ORFs as coding or non-coding through a score based on (i) the stop codon distribution, (ii) the product of purine probabilities in the three positions of nucleotide triplets, (iii) the product of Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), and Adenine (A) probabilities in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd positions of triplets, respectively, (iv) the probabilities of G in 1st and 2nd position of triplets and (v) the distance of their GC3 vs. GC2 levels to the regression line of the universal correlation. More than 80% of CDSs (true positives) of Homo sapiens (>250 bp), Drosophila melanogaster (>250 bp) and Arabidopsis thaliana (>200 bp) are successfully classified with a false positive rate lower or equal to 5%. The method releases coding sequences in their coding strand and coding frame, which allows their automatic translation into protein sequences with 95% confidence. The method is a natural consequence of the compositional bias of nucleotides in coding sequences.
PDF (1.85 MB PDF FORMAT)
RIS citation (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)
BibTex citation (BIBDESK, LATEX)
PMC HTML
The publication of our paper in Bioinformatics and Biology Insights was highly professional and very pleasant on all levels: the guidelines for authors are concise, the online submission system is user-friendly, the comments from the reviewers were insightful and improved our paper, and the preparation of the manuscript for publication was efficient. I particularly liked the fast feedback from the staff on the state of the submission and review process.
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.See Our Results
Copyright © 2013 Libertas Academica Ltd (except open access articles and accompanying metadata and supplementary files.)
FacebookGoogle+Twitter
PinterestTumblrYouTube