OrthoFocus: program for identification of orthologs in multiple genomes in family-focused studies

The identification of orthologs to a set of known genes is often the starting point for evolutionary studies focused on gene families of interest. To date, the existing orthology detection tools (COG, InParanoid, OrthoMCL, etc.) are aimed at genome-wide ortholog identification and lack flexibility for the purposes of case studies. We developed a program OrthoFocus, which employs an extended reciprocal best hit approach to quickly search for orthologs in a pair of genomes. A group of paralogs from the input genome is used as the start for the forward search and the criterion for the reverse search, which allows handling many-to-one and many-to-many relationships. By pairwise comparison of genomes with the input species genome, OrthoFocus enables quick identification of orthologs in multiple genomes and generates a multiple alignment of orthologs so that it can further be used in phylogenetic analysis. The program is available at http://www.lipidomics.ru/.     

Automatic clustering of orthologs and inparalogs shared by multiple proteomes

MOTIVATION: The complete sequencing of many genomes has made it possible to identify orthologous genes descending from a common ancestor. However, reconstruction of evolutionary history over long time periods faces many challenges due to gene duplications and losses. Identification of orthologous groups shared by multiple proteomes therefore becomes a clustering problem in which an optimal compromise between conflicting evidences needs to be found. RESULTS: Here we present a new proteome-scale analysis program called MultiParanoid that can automatically find orthology relationships between proteins in multiple proteomes. The software is an extension of the InParanoid program that identifies orthologs and inparalogs in pairwise proteome comparisons. MultiParanoid applies a clustering algorithm to merge multiple pairwise ortholog groups from InParanoid into multi-species ortholog groups. To avoid outparalogs in the same cluster, MultiParanoid only combines species that share the same last ancestor. To validate the clustering technique, we compared the results to a reference set obtained by manual phylogenetic analysis. We further compared the results to ortholog groups in KOGs and OrthoMCL, which revealed that MultiParanoid produces substantially fewer outparalogs than these resources. AVAILABILITY: MultiParanoid is a freely available standalone program that enables efficient orthology analysis much needed in the post-genomic era. A web-based service providing access to the original datasets, the resulting groups of orthologs, and the source code of the program can be found at http://multiparanoid.cgb.ki.se.     

Phylogenetic and Functional Assessment of Orthologs Inference Projects and Methods

Accurate genome-wide identification of orthologs is a central problem in comparative genomics, a fact reflected by the numerous orthology identification projects developed in recent years. However, only a few reports have compared their accuracy, and indeed, several recent efforts have not yet been systematically evaluated. Furthermore, orthology is typically only assessed in terms of function conservation, despite the phylogeny-based original definition of Fitch. We collected and mapped the results of nine leading orthology projects and methods (COG, KOG, Inparanoid, OrthoMCL, Ensembl Compara, Homologene, RoundUp, EggNOG, and OMA) and two standard methods (bidirectional best-hit and reciprocal smallest distance). We systematically compared their predictions with respect to both phylogeny and function, using six different tests. This required the mapping of millions of sequences, the handling of hundreds of millions of predicted pairs of orthologs, and the computation of tens of thousands of trees. In phylogenetic analysis or in functional analysis where high specificity is required, we find that OMA and Homologene perform best. At lower functional specificity but higher coverage level, OrthoMCL outperforms Ensembl Compara, and to a lesser extent Inparanoid. Lastly, the large coverage of the recent EggNOG can be of interest to build broad functional grouping, but the method is not specific enough for phylogenetic or detailed function analyses. In terms of general methodology, we observe that the more sophisticated tree reconstruction/reconciliation approach of Ensembl Compara was at times outperformed by pairwise comparison approaches, even in phylogenetic tests. Furthermore, we show that standard bidirectional best-hit often outperforms projects with more complex algorithms. First, the present study provides guidance for the broad community of orthology data users as to which database best suits their needs. Second, it introduces new methodology to verify orthology. And third, it sets performance standards for current and future approaches.     

A Phylogeny-Based Benchmarking Test for Orthology Inference Reveals the Limitations of Function-Based Validation

Accurate orthology prediction is crucial for many applications in the post-genomic era. The lack of broadly accepted benchmark tests precludes a comprehensive analysis of orthology inference. So far, functional annotation between orthologs serves as a performance proxy. However, this violates the fundamental principle of orthology as an evolutionary definition, while it is often not applicable due to limited experimental evidence for most species. Therefore, we constructed high quality "gold standard" orthologous groups that can serve as a benchmark set for orthology inference in bacterial species. Herein, we used this dataset to demonstrate 1) why a manually curated, phylogeny-based dataset is more appropriate for benchmarking orthology than other popular practices and 2) how it guides database design and parameterization through careful error quantification. More specifically, we illustrate how function-based tests often fail to identify false assignments, misjudging the true performance of orthology inference methods. We also examined how our dataset can instruct the selection of a “core” species repertoire to improve detection accuracy. We conclude that including more genomes at the proper evolutionary distances can influence the overall quality of orthology detection. The curated gene families, called Reference Orthologous Groups, are publicly available at http://eggnog.embl.de/orthobench2.     

An approach of orthology detection from homologous sequences under minimum evolution

In the field of phylogenetics and comparative genomics, it is important to establish orthologous relationships when comparing homologous sequences. Due to the slight sequence dissimilarity between orthologs and paralogs, it is prone to regarding paralogs as orthologs. For this reason, several methods based on evolutionary distance, phylogeny and BLAST have tried to detect orthologs with more precision. Depending on their algorithmic implementations, each of these methods sometimes has increased false negative or false positive rates. Here, we developed a novel algorithm for orthology detection that uses a distance method based on the phylogenetic criterion of minimum evolution. Our algorithm assumes that sets of sequences exhibiting orthologous relationships are evolutionarily less costly than sets that include one or more paralogous relationships. Calculation of evolutionary cost requires the reconstruction of a neighbor-joining (NJ) tree, but calculations are unaffected by the topology of any given NJ tree. Unlike tree reconciliation, our algorithm appears free from the problem of incorrect topologies of species and gene trees. The reliability of the algorithm was tested in a comparative analysis with two other orthology detection methods using 95 manually curated KOG datasets and 21 experimentally verified EXProt datasets. Sensitivity and specificity estimates indicate that the concept of minimum evolution could be valuable for the detection of orthologs.     

QuartetS: a fast and accurate algorithm for large-scale orthology detection

The unparalleled growth in the availability of genomic data offers both a challenge to develop orthology detection methods that are simultaneously accurate and high throughput and an opportunity to improve orthology detection by leveraging evolutionary evidence in the accumulated sequenced genomes. Here, we report a novel orthology detection method, termed QuartetS, that exploits evolutionary evidence in a computationally efficient manner. Based on the well-established evolutionary concept that gene duplication events can be used to discriminate homologous genes, QuartetS uses an approximate phylogenetic analysis of quartet gene trees to infer the occurrence of duplication events and discriminate paralogous from orthologous genes. We used function- and phylogeny-based metrics to perform a large-scale, systematic comparison of the orthology predictions of QuartetS with those of four other methods [bi-directional best hit (BBH), outgroup, OMA and QuartetS-C (QuartetS followed by clustering)], involving 624 bacterial genomes and >2 million genes. We found that QuartetS slightly, but consistently, outperformed the highly specific OMA method and that, while consuming only 0.5% additional computational time, QuartetS predicted 50% more orthologs with a 50% lower false positive rate than the widely used BBH method. We conclude that, for large-scale phylogenetic and functional analysis, QuartetS and QuartetS-C should be preferred, respectively, in applications where high accuracy and high throughput are required.     

Clustering of main orthologs for multiple genomes

The identification of orthologous genes shared by multiple genomes is critical for both functional and evolutionary studies in comparative genomics. While it is usually done by sequence similarity search and reconciled tree construction in practice, recently a new combinatorial approach and high-throughput system MSOAR for ortholog identification between closely related genomes based on genome rearrangement and gene duplication has been proposed in Fu et al. MSOAR assumes that orthologous genes correspond to each other in the most parsimonious evolutionary scenario, minimizing the number of genome rearrangement and (postspeciation) gene duplication events. However, the parsimony approach used by MSOAR limits it to pairwise genome comparisons. In this paper, we extend MSOAR to multiple (closely related) genomes and propose an ortholog clustering method, called MultiMSOAR, to infer main orthologs in multiple genomes. As a preliminary experiment, we apply MultiMSOAR to rat, mouse, and human genomes, and validate our results using gene annotations and gene function classifications in the public databases. We further compare our results to the ortholog clusters predicted by MultiParanoid, which is an extension of the well-known program InParanoid for pairwise genome comparisons. The comparison reveals that MultiMSOAR gives more detailed and accurate orthology information, since it can effectively distinguish main orthologs from inparalogs.     

Assessment of phylogenomic and orthology approaches for phylogenetic inference

MOTIVATION: Phylogenomics integrates the vast amount of phylogenetic information contained in complete genome sequences, and is rapidly becoming the standard for reliably inferring species phylogenies. There are, however, fundamental differences between the ways in which phylogenomic approaches like gene content, superalignment, superdistance and supertree integrate the phylogenetic information from separate orthologous groups. Furthermore, they all depend on the method by which the orthologous groups are initially determined. Here, we systematically compare these four phylogenomic approaches, in parallel with three approaches for large-scale orthology determination: pairwise orthology, cluster orthology and tree-based orthology. RESULTS: Including various phylogenetic methods, we apply a total of 54 fully automated phylogenomic procedures to the fungi, the eukaryotic clade with the largest number of sequenced genomes, for which we retrieved a golden standard phylogeny from the literature. Phylogenomic trees based on gene content show, relative to the other methods, a bias in the tree topology that parallels convergence in lifestyle among the species compared, indicating convergence in gene content. CONCLUSIONS: Complete genomes are no guarantee for good or even consistent phylogenies. However, the large amounts of data in genomes enable us to carefully select the data most suitable for phylogenomic inference. In terms of performance, the superalignment approach, combined with restrictive orthology, is the most successful in recovering a fungal phylogeny that agrees with current taxonomic views, and allows us to obtain a high-resolution phylogeny. We provide solid support for what has grown to be a common practice in phylogenomics during its advance in recent years. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.     

Evolutionary constraints on structural similarity in orthologs and paralogs

Although a quantitative relationship between sequence similarity and structural similarity has long been established, little is known about the impact of orthology on the relationship between protein sequence and structure. Among homologs, orthologs (derived by speciation) more frequently have similar functions than paralogs (derived by duplication). Here, we hypothesize that an orthologous pair will tend to exhibit greater structural similarity than a paralogous pair at the same level of sequence similarity. To test this hypothesis, we used 284,459 pairwise structure‐based alignments of 12,634 unique domains from SCOP as well as orthology and paralogy assignments from OrthoMCL DB. We divided the comparisons by sequence identity and determined whether the sequence‐structure relationship differed between the orthologs and paralogs. We found that at levels of sequence identity between 30 and 70%, orthologous domain pairs indeed tend to be significantly more structurally similar than paralogous pairs at the same level of sequence identity. An even larger difference is found when comparing ligand binding residues instead of whole domains. These differences between orthologs and paralogs are expected to be useful for selecting template structures in comparative modeling and target proteins in structural genomics.     

An SVD-based comparison of nine whole eukaryotic genomes supports a coelomate rather than ecdysozoan lineage

Background  

Eukaryotic whole genome sequences are accumulating at an impressive rate. Effective methods for comparing multiple whole eukaryotic genomes on a large scale are needed. Most attempted solutions involve the production of large scale alignments, and many of these require a high stringency pre-screen for putative orthologs in order to reduce the effective size of the dataset and provide a reasonably high but unknown fraction of correctly aligned homologous sites for comparison. As an alternative, highly efficient methods that do not require the pre-alignment of operationally defined orthologs are also being explored.     

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.     

The Princeton Protein Orthology Database (P-POD): a comparative genomics analysis tool for biologists

Many biological databases that provide comparative genomics information and tools are now available on the internet. While certainly quite useful, to our knowledge none of the existing databases combine results from multiple comparative genomics methods with manually curated information from the literature. Here we describe the Princeton Protein Orthology Database (P-POD, http://ortholog.princeton.edu), a user-friendly database system that allows users to find and visualize the phylogenetic relationships among predicted orthologs (based on the OrthoMCL method) to a query gene from any of eight eukaryotic organisms, and to see the orthologs in a wider evolutionary context (based on the Jaccard clustering method). In addition to the phylogenetic information, the database contains experimental results manually collected from the literature that can be compared to the computational analyses, as well as links to relevant human disease and gene information via the OMIM, model organism, and sequence databases. Our aim is for the P-POD resource to be extremely useful to typical experimental biologists wanting to learn more about the evolutionary context of their favorite genes. P-POD is based on the commonly used Generic Model Organism Database (GMOD) schema and can be downloaded in its entirety for installation on one's own system. Thus, bioinformaticians and software developers may also find P-POD useful because they can use the P-POD database infrastructure when developing their own comparative genomics resources and database tools.     

COCO-CL: hierarchical clustering of homology relations based on evolutionary correlations

MOTIVATION: Determining orthology relations among genes across multiple genomes is an important problem in the post-genomic era. Identifying orthologous genes can not only help predict functional annotations for newly sequenced or poorly characterized genomes, but can also help predict new protein-protein interactions. Unfortunately, determining orthology relation through computational methods is not straightforward due to the presence of paralogs. Traditional approaches have relied on pairwise sequence comparisons to construct graphs, which were then partitioned into putative clusters of orthologous groups. These methods do not attempt to preserve the non-transitivity and hierarchic nature of the orthology relation. RESULTS: We propose a new method, COCO-CL, for hierarchical clustering of homology relations and identification of orthologous groups of genes. Unlike previous approaches, which are based on pairwise sequence comparisons, our method explores the correlation of evolutionary histories of individual genes in a more global context. COCO-CL can be used as a semi-independent method to delineate the orthology/paralogy relation for a refined set of homologous proteins obtained using a less-conservative clustering approach, or as a refiner that removes putative out-paralogs from clusters computed using a more inclusive approach. We analyze our clustering results manually, with support from literature and functional annotations. Since our orthology determination procedure does not employ a species tree to infer duplication events, it can be used in situations when the species tree is unknown or uncertain. CONTACT: jothi@mail.nih.gov, przytyck@mail.nih.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary materials are available at Bioinformatics online.     

Computational methods for Gene Orthology inference

Accurate inference of orthologous genes is a pre-requisite for most comparative genomics studies, and is also important for functional annotation of new genomes. Identification of orthologous gene sets typically involves phylogenetic tree analysis, heuristic algorithms based on sequence conservation, synteny analysis, or some combination of these approaches. The most direct tree-based methods typically rely on the comparison of an individual gene tree with a species tree. Once the two trees are accurately constructed, orthologs are straightforwardly identified by the definition of orthology as those homologs that are related by speciation, rather than gene duplication, at their most recent point of origin. Although ideal for the purpose of orthology identification in principle, phylogenetic trees are computationally expensive to construct for large numbers of genes and genomes, and they often contain errors, especially at large evolutionary distances. Moreover, in many organisms, in particular prokaryotes and viruses, evolution does not appear to have followed a simple 'tree-like' mode, which makes conventional tree reconciliation inapplicable. Other, heuristic methods identify probable orthologs as the closest homologous pairs or groups of genes in a set of organisms. These approaches are faster and easier to automate than tree-based methods, with efficient implementations provided by graph-theoretical algorithms enabling comparisons of thousands of genomes. Comparisons of these two approaches show that, despite conceptual differences, they produce similar sets of orthologs, especially at short evolutionary distances. Synteny also can aid in identification of orthologs. Often, tree-based, sequence similarity- and synteny-based approaches can be combined into flexible hybrid methods.     

Using orthologous and paralogous proteins to identify specificity determining residues

Background  

Concepts of orthology and paralogy are become increasingly important as whole-genome comparison allows their identification in complete genomes. Functional specificity of proteins is assumed to be conserved among orthologs and is different among paralogs. We used this assumption to identify residues which determine specificity of protein-DNA and protein-ligand recognition. Finding such residues is crucial for understanding mechanisms of molecular recognition and for rational protein and drug design.     

OrthoGUI: graphical presentation of Orthostrapper results

SUMMARY: Orthostrapper is a program that calculates orthology support values for pairs of sequences in a multiple alignment (Storm and Sonnhammer, Bioinformatics, 18, 92-99, 2002). Here we present OrthoGUI, a web interface and display tool for Orthostrapper analysis. OrthoGUI visualizes the Orthostrapper output in both tabular and tree representations, and can also apply a clustering algorithm to identify groups of multiple orthologs, which are indicated by colour coding. AVAILABILITY: http://www.cgb.ki.se/OrthoGUI CONTACT: erik.sonnhammer@cgb.ki.se     

Automated ortholog inference from phylogenetic trees and calculation of orthology reliability

MOTIVATION: Orthologous proteins in different species are likely to have similar biochemical function and biological role. When annotating a newly sequenced genome by sequence homology, the most precise and reliable functional information can thus be derived from orthologs in other species. A standard method of finding orthologs is to compare the sequence tree with the species tree. However, since the topology of phylogenetic tree is not always reliable one might get incorrect assignments. RESULTS: Here we present a novel method that resolves this problem by analyzing a set of bootstrap trees instead of the optimal tree. The frequency of orthology assignments in the bootstrap trees can be interpreted as a support value for the possible orthology of the sequences. Our method is efficient enough to analyze data in the scale of whole genomes. It is implemented in Java and calculates orthology support levels for all pairwise combinations of homologous sequences of two species. The method was tested on simulated datasets and on real data of homologous proteins.