Data integration in microbial genomics ... - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

80 6. Domains of unknown function 6.2 Introduction Genomic and metagenomic sequencing projects are revealing everincreasing numbers of novel genes, many of unknown function. The Pfam 23 database [Finn et al., 2008], for example, stored some 10 340 protein domain families derived from conserved sequence data with 22% dubbed “domains of unknown function” (DUFs). This proportion is predicted to soon overtake that of functionally characterized domains [Bateman et al., 2010], prompting calls for community action [Roberts, 2004] and concerted, cross-disciplinary attention [Galperin and Koonin, 2010]. In their response, Jaroszewski et al. [Jaroszewski et al., 2009] and Goonesekere et al. [Goonesekere et al., 2010] noted several DUFs that appeared to be variations of functionally characterized protein folds, most likely maintained due to an extension of an organism’s ecological niche. It is reasonable to expect that conserved DUFs enhance ecological performance; however, characterizing DUFs from an ecological perspective has yet to be attempted. In this communication, we present a method of functional hypothesis generation based on DUF correlation across the Global Ocean Sampling (GOS) metagenome collection [Rusch et al., 2007]. Network visualizations were used in hypothesis generation followed by indirect gradient analysis to contextualize one well-defined hypothesis with environmental metadata. Together, these approaches aim to support efforts in DUF characterization using ecogenomic resources. 6.3 Material and Methods Correlation analysis of microbial taxa and environmental parameters has previously been used to construct association networks [Fuhrman et al., 2008,Fuhrman, 2009]. Just as the correlation of taxa-abundance may elucidate a given taxon’s ecosystem-level interactions and function, correlation of protein domains across environments may grant insight into their potential associations and roles. This approach parallels the identification of unknown metabolic modules whereby genomic features found to co-vary in response to experimental pertur-
6.4. Results 81 bations are grouped in putative modules [Breitling et al., 2008]. To detect such associations in metagenomic datasets, we measured the Spearman rank correlation (ρ) between DUFs detected in the globallydistributed GOS metagenomes (473 351 DUFs detected in 454 varieties across 79 metagenomes, see Supplementary methods online). We visualized these results as network graphs. Vertices (representing DUFs varieties) were connected if their ρ was ≥ 0.90. As abundances of 454 DUF varieties were correlated, we enforced a Bonferroni-corrected p- value threshold of ∼ 2.20× 10 5 (0.01 / 454). We embedded the graph using the Fruchterman-Reingold procedure [Fruchterman and Reingold, 1991]. A minimal spanning tree was visualized after Prim’s algorithm [Prim, 1957] to aid visual interpretation (Fig. 6.1). We assigned DUFs to putative functional categories guided by Pfam descriptions and linked literature, color-coding vertices accordingly. 6.4 Results We observed two prominent networks, one dominated by DUFs linked to photosynthetic organisms (Fig. 6.1, II) and another comprised of more diverse members (Fig. 6.1, I). Smaller networks were observed, including one associating DUFs 404 and 407 (Fig. 6.1, III), domains known to co-occur [Goonesekere et al., 2010]. Employing a ‘guilty-byassociation’ approach (Merico et al, 2009), we propagated hypotheses across closely-embedded domains. We thus hypothesized that DUFs in network II (Fig. 6.1), including unassigned DUFs (Fig. 6.1, grey vertices), describe a photobiologically active module. To examine this hypothesis, the taxonomic distributions of the unassigned domains were examined using the Pfam web-interface (http://pfam.sanger.ac.uk/). DUFs 1997, 1995, 1830, and 1651 were observed exclusively in phototrophic organisms while DUF2307 appeared to have a higher copy number in Cyanobacteria. DUFs 2214 and 564 showed less striking distributions, however, we speculate they may be involved in pigmentation and C1 metabolism respectively (see Supplementary material online). The larger network (Fig. 6.1, I) was difficult to interpret due to the diverse functions of its members. The centrality of the
Page 1:
Max Planck Institute for Marine Mic
Page 4 and 5:
List of abbreviations BLAST Basic L
Page 6 and 7:
Thesis abstract Deoxyribonucleic ac
Page 8 and 9:
4.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . .
Page 10 and 11:
2 1. Introduction syntax: data leve
Page 12 and 13:
4 1. Introduction used to derive ne
Page 14 and 15:
6 1. Introduction croorganisms thri
Page 16 and 17:
8 1. Introduction the middle at the
Page 18 and 19:
10 1. Introduction marker genes hel
Page 20 and 21:
12 1. Introduction what kind and wh
Page 22 and 23:
14 1. Introduction possibilities li
Page 24 and 25:
16 1. Introduction tual data acquis
Page 26 and 27:
18 1. Introduction Doug Wendel, Owe
Page 29 and 30:
CHAPTER 2 METABAR A tool for consis
Page 31 and 32:
2.2. Background 23 molecular sequen
Page 33 and 34:
2.2. Background 25 printing of data
Page 35 and 36:
2.4. Results 27 KML export function
Page 37 and 38: 2.4. Results 29 Figure 2.3: Screens
Page 39 and 40: 2.5. Discussion 31 taking samples i
Page 41 and 42: 2.5. Discussion 33 Handlebar MetaBa
Page 43 and 44: 2.6. Conclusion 35 rine Microbiolog
Page 45: 2.6. Conclusion 37 RK advised progr
Page 48 and 49: 40 3. CDinFusion Genomic Standards
Page 50 and 51: 42 3. CDinFusion sortium (GSC), an
Page 52 and 53: 44 3. CDinFusion tiFASTA file with
Page 54 and 55: 46 3. CDinFusion offered the option
Page 56 and 57: 48 3. CDinFusion AMD Opteron TM pro
Page 58 and 59: 50 3. CDinFusion able separately an
Page 60 and 61: 52 3. CDinFusion and upload it with
Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER 4 MIMARKS The Minimum infor
Page 65 and 66: 4.2. Introduction 57 edge generatio
Page 67 and 68: 4.3. Development of MIMARKS 59 in t
Page 69 and 70: 4.4. Survey of published parameters
Page 71 and 72: 4.5. The MIMARKS checklist 63 Resul
Page 73 and 74: 4.6. Conclusions and call for actio
Page 75 and 76: CHAPTER 5 MEGX.NET Integrated datab
Page 77 and 78: 5.3. New database structure and con
Page 79 and 80: 5.3. New database structure and con
Page 81 and 82: 5.4. User Access 73 5.4 User Access
Page 83 and 84: 5.4. User Access 75 tal context, co
Page 85: 5.5. Summary 77 access charge: Max
Page 90 and 91: 82 6. Domains of unknown function F
Page 92 and 93: 84 6. Domains of unknown function p
Page 95 and 96: CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Th
Page 97 and 98: 7.2. GSC standards development 89 T
Page 99 and 100: 7.2. GSC standards development 91 o
Page 101 and 102: 7.4. In silico Hypothesis Generatio
Page 103: 7.5. Getting the most out of the da
Page 106 and 107: 98 8. Conclusion and outlook nities
Page 108 and 109: 100 8. Conclusion and outlook plina
Page 110 and 111: 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY [Beynon-Davies, 20
Page 112 and 113: 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY oceanic regions by
Page 114 and 115: 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY [Giovannoni et al.
Page 116 and 117: 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY [Kitano, 2002] Kit
Page 118 and 119: 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY pathways in marine
Page 120 and 121: 112 BIBLIOGRAPHY [Ramette, 2007] Ra
Page 122 and 123: 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY (2006). Microbial
Page 124 and 125: 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY [Williamson et al.
Page 127: CHAPTER 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I
show all

Data integration in microbial genomics ... - Jacobs University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?