More at http://biorg.cis.fiu.edu/

We present methods for the identification of protein-coding genes based on their patterns of nucleotide conservation across related species. We observed the pressure to conserve the reading frame of functional proteins and developed a test for gene identification with high sensitivity and specificity. We used this test to revisit the genome of S. cerevisiae, reducing the overall gene count by 500 genes (10% of previously annotated genes) and refining the gene structure of hundreds of genes. We present novel methods for the systematic de novo identification of regulatory motifs. The methods do not rely on previous knowledge of gene function and in that way differ from the current literature on computational motif discovery. Based on the genome-wide conservation patterns of known motifs, we developed three conservation criteria that we used to discover novel motifs. We used an enumeration approach to select strongly conserved motif cores, which we extended and collapsed into a small number of candidate regulatory motifs. These include most previously known regulatory motifs as well as several noteworthy novel motifs. The majority of discovered motifs are enriched in functionally related genes, allowing us to infer a candidate function for novel motifs.

Our results demonstrate the power of comparative genomics to further our understanding of any species. Our methods are validated by the extensive experimental knowledge in yeast, and will be invaluable in the study of complex genomes like that of human.

Address of the bookmark: http://web.mit.edu/manoli/www/publications/Kellis_JCB_04.pdf

Address of the bookmark: http://ab.inf.uni-tuebingen.de/software/metasim/

http://www.nibmg.ac.in/academic/SyMeC-ICGC/SyMeC%20&%20ICGC_May%202018.pdf

http://www.nibmg.ac.in/academic/plp/15_05_2018/AdvertisementMay2018.pdf

More at http://clark.genetics.utah.edu/

According to a preliminary report posted on December 19 by the COG-UK Consortium scientists, as of December 15, 1,623 variant genomes have been sequenced. In a December 21 tweet, COG-UK Consortium said that it added 2,963 more genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2, of which 942 (32%) belong to the new variant. The Consortium intends to sequence 20,000 more SARS-CoV-2 genomes in the next two weeks to further ascertain the spread of the variant.

There is no clear proof, at least not yet, that it does cause severe pandemic. But there is a justification for seriously taking the possibility. Another coronavirus lineage in South Africa has acquired one specific mutation that is also present in B.1.1.7. This variant is increasingly spreading across South Africa's coastal regions. And doctors have observed in preliminary research that individuals infected with this variant bear a higher viral load-a higher concentration of the virus in their upper respiratory tract. In many viral diseases, this is associated with more severe symptoms.

#NBGN21

www.nbgn21conference.com

Our research centres on the use of genetics/genomics and phenotypic studies to address complex questions in the ecology, epidemiology and evolution of microbes. Our most recent interest focuses upon comparative genome analysis to describe the core and flexible genome of pathogenic bacteria (Campylobacter, Acinetobacter, Escherichia coli, Helicobacter, Staphylococcus and Streptococcus suis) and how this is related to population genetic structuring, the maintenance of species, and the evolution of host/niche adaptation and virulence.

More at https://sheppardlab.com/research/

Why Normalize RNA-Seq Data?

Normalization is a crucial step in RNA-Seq analysis for the following reasons:

• Sequencing depth: Different RNA-Seq experiments produce varying numbers of reads, making direct comparisons between samples misleading.

• Gene length: Longer genes inherently generate more reads, irrespective of their actual expression level.

• Bias reduction: Normalization mitigates technical biases, enabling meaningful biological interpretation.

TPM (Transcripts Per Million)

TPM measures the proportion of reads mapped to a transcript, normalized by transcript length and sequencing depth. It is calculated as:

Key Features:

1. Proportionality: TPM values sum to 1,000,000 across all transcripts in a sample, making it easier to compare between samples.

2. Intuitive interpretation: TPM values directly represent the abundance of transcripts in a sample.

3. Preferred for comparisons: TPM facilitates between-sample comparisons better than FPKM.

FPKM (Fragments Per Kilobase Million)

FPKM normalizes read counts by transcript length and sequencing depth, but without enforcing proportionality like TPM. It is defined as:

Key Features:

1. Historical significance: FPKM was one of the first normalization methods used for RNA-Seq.

2. Single-end vs. paired-end: In paired-end sequencing, FPKM becomes RPKM (Reads Per Kilobase Million).

3. Limited utility: FPKM values are not as robust as TPM for cross-sample comparisons due to lack of proportionality.

CPM (Counts Per Million)

CPM normalizes raw read counts by sequencing depth, without considering gene length. It is expressed as:

Key Features:

1. Simplicity: CPM is straightforward and computationally less intensive.

2. Application: Suitable for non-length-dependent analyses, such as comparing total expression levels or differential expression analysis.

3. Gene length agnostic: CPM does not correct for gene length, making it less ideal for measuring expression levels.

When to Use Each Method

• TPM: Best for comparing expression levels between samples, especially when transcript length and sequencing depth vary.

• FPKM: Useful for historical consistency but generally replaced by TPM.

• CPM: Ideal for differential expression analysis when gene length normalization is unnecessary.

Conclusion

Choosing the right normalization method depends on the specific objectives of your RNA-Seq analysis. TPM’s proportionality and robustness make it the preferred choice for most applications, while CPM serves well for differential expression studies. Although FPKM paved the way for RNA-Seq normalization, it has largely been supplanted by TPM in modern workflows. Understanding these methods and their nuances ensures accurate and meaningful interpretations of RNA-Seq data.

References:

1. Li, B., & Dewey, C. N. (2011). RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics.

2. Trapnell, C., et al. (2010). Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotechnology.

3. Law, C. W., et al. (2014). voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biology.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.ogt.com/assets/0000/3190/NGS_Survey_2013_Infographic_Web.pdf