Homology principles

Homology: concepts and principles

This page is a placeholder, or under current development; it is here principally to establish the logical framework of the site. The material on this page is correct, but incomplete.

Summary ...

 

Contents

Defining orthologs

A number of different strategies are available to use precomputed results to define the Mbp1 most similar ortholog in YFO.

Orthologs by COGs and KOGS

• COGs and KOGS

Orthologs by OMA and OrhtoDB

Orthologs by syntenic gene order conservation

Orthologs by RBM

   

Further reading and resources

Powell et al. (2014) eggNOG v4.0: nested orthology inference across 3686 organisms. Nucleic Acids Res 42:D231-9. (pmid: 24297252)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Abstract With the increasing availability of various 'omics data, high-quality orthology assignment is crucial for evolutionary and functional genomics studies. We here present the fourth version of the eggNOG database (available at http://eggnog.embl.de) that derives nonsupervised orthologous groups (NOGs) from complete genomes, and then applies a comprehensive characterization and analysis pipeline to the resulting gene families. Compared with the previous version, we have more than tripled the underlying species set to cover 3686 organisms, keeping track with genome project completions while prioritizing the inclusion of high-quality genomes to minimize error propagation from incomplete proteome sets. Major technological advances include (i) a robust and scalable procedure for the identification and inclusion of high-quality genomes, (ii) provision of orthologous groups for 107 different taxonomic levels compared with 41 in eggNOGv3, (iii) identification and annotation of particularly closely related orthologous groups, facilitating analysis of related gene families, (iv) improvements of the clustering and functional annotation approach, (v) adoption of a revised tree building procedure based on the multiple alignments generated during the process and (vi) implementation of quality control procedures throughout the entire pipeline. As in previous versions, eggNOGv4 provides multiple sequence alignments and maximum-likelihood trees, as well as broad functional annotation. Users can access the complete database of orthologous groups via a web interface, as well as through bulk download.

Altenhoff et al. (2012) Resolving the ortholog conjecture: orthologs tend to be weakly, but significantly, more similar in function than paralogs. PLoS Comput Biol 8:e1002514. (pmid: 22615551)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Abstract The function of most proteins is not determined experimentally, but is extrapolated from homologs. According to the "ortholog conjecture", or standard model of phylogenomics, protein function changes rapidly after duplication, leading to paralogs with different functions, while orthologs retain the ancestral function. We report here that a comparison of experimentally supported functional annotations among homologs from 13 genomes mostly supports this model. We show that to analyze GO annotation effectively, several confounding factors need to be controlled: authorship bias, variation of GO term frequency among species, variation of background similarity among species pairs, and propagated annotation bias. After controlling for these biases, we observe that orthologs have generally more similar functional annotations than paralogs. This is especially strong for sub-cellular localization. We observe only a weak decrease in functional similarity with increasing sequence divergence. These findings hold over a large diversity of species; notably orthologs from model organisms such as E. coli, yeast or mouse have conserved function with human proteins.

Altenhoff & Dessimoz (2012) Inferring orthology and paralogy. Methods Mol Biol 855:259-79. (pmid: 22407712)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Abstract The distinction between orthologs and paralogs, genes that started diverging by speciation versus duplication, is relevant in a wide range of contexts, most notably phylogenetic tree inference and protein function annotation. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the methods used to infer orthology and paralogy. We survey both graph-based approaches (and their various grouping strategies) and tree-based approaches, which solve the more general problem of gene/species tree reconciliation. We discuss conceptual differences among the various orthology inference methods and databases, and examine the difficult issue of verifying and benchmarking orthology predictions. Finally, we review typical applications of orthologous genes, groups, and reconciled trees and conclude with thoughts on future methodological developments.

DeLuca et al. (2012) Roundup 2.0: enabling comparative genomics for over 1800 genomes. Bioinformatics 28:715-6. (pmid: 22247275)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Abstract UNLABELLED: Roundup is an online database of gene orthologs for over 1800 genomes, including 226 Eukaryota, 1447 Bacteria, 113 Archaea and 21 Viruses. Orthologs are inferred using the Reciprocal Smallest Distance algorithm. Users may query Roundup for single-linkage clusters of orthologous genes based on any group of genomes. Annotated query results may be viewed in a variety of ways including as clusters of orthologs and as phylogenetic profiles. Genomic results may be downloaded in formats suitable for functional as well as phylogenetic analysis, including the recent OrthoXML standard. In addition, gene IDs can be retrieved using FASTA sequence search. All source code and orthologs are freely available. AVAILABILITY: http://roundup.hms.harvard.edu.

Kristensen et al. (2011) Computational methods for Gene Orthology inference. Brief Bioinformatics 12:379-91. (pmid: 21690100)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Abstract 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.

Altenhoff et al. (2011) OMA 2011: orthology inference among 1000 complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 39:D289-94. (pmid: 21113020)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Abstract OMA (Orthologous MAtrix) is a database that identifies orthologs among publicly available, complete genomes. Initiated in 2004, the project is at its 11th release. It now includes 1000 genomes, making it one of the largest resources of its kind. Here, we describe recent developments in terms of species covered; the algorithmic pipeline--in particular regarding the treatment of alternative splicing, and new features of the web (OMA Browser) and programming interface (SOAP API). In the second part, we review the various representations provided by OMA and their typical applications. The database is publicly accessible at http://omabrowser.org.

Tatusov et al. (2003) The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics 4:41. (pmid: 12969510)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Abstract BACKGROUND: The availability of multiple, essentially complete genome sequences of prokaryotes and eukaryotes spurred both the demand and the opportunity for the construction of an evolutionary classification of genes from these genomes. Such a classification system based on orthologous relationships between genes appears to be a natural framework for comparative genomics and should facilitate both functional annotation of genomes and large-scale evolutionary studies. RESULTS: We describe here a major update of the previously developed system for delineation of Clusters of Orthologous Groups of proteins (COGs) from the sequenced genomes of prokaryotes and unicellular eukaryotes and the construction of clusters of predicted orthologs for 7 eukaryotic genomes, which we named KOGs after eukaryotic orthologous groups. The COG collection currently consists of 138,458 proteins, which form 4873 COGs and comprise 75% of the 185,505 (predicted) proteins encoded in 66 genomes of unicellular organisms. The eukaryotic orthologous groups (KOGs) include proteins from 7 eukaryotic genomes: three animals (the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens), one plant, Arabidopsis thaliana, two fungi (Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe), and the intracellular microsporidian parasite Encephalitozoon cuniculi. The current KOG set consists of 4852 clusters of orthologs, which include 59,838 proteins, or approximately 54% of the analyzed eukaryotic 110,655 gene products. Compared to the coverage of the prokaryotic genomes with COGs, a considerably smaller fraction of eukaryotic genes could be included into the KOGs; addition of new eukaryotic genomes is expected to result in substantial increase in the coverage of eukaryotic genomes with KOGs. Examination of the phyletic patterns of KOGs reveals a conserved core represented in all analyzed species and consisting of approximately 20% of the KOG set. This conserved portion of the KOG set is much greater than the ubiquitous portion of the COG set (approximately 1% of the COGs). In part, this difference is probably due to the small number of included eukaryotic genomes, but it could also reflect the relative compactness of eukaryotes as a clade and the greater evolutionary stability of eukaryotic genomes. CONCLUSION: The updated collection of orthologous protein sets for prokaryotes and eukaryotes is expected to be a useful platform for functional annotation of newly sequenced genomes, including those of complex eukaryotes, and genome-wide evolutionary studies.