Inferring Positional Homologs with Common Intervals of Sequences

  • Guillaume Blin
  • Annie Chateau
  • Cedric Chauve
  • Yannick Gingras
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4205)


Inferring orthologous and paralogous genes is an important problem in whole genomes comparisons, both for functional or evolutionary studies. In this paper, we introduce a new approach for inferring candidate pairs of orthologous genes between genomes, also called positional homologs, based on the conservation of the genomic context. We consider genomes represented by their gene order – i.e. sequences of signed integers – and common intervals of these sequences as the anchors of the final gene matching. We show that the natural combinatorial problem of computing a maximal cover of the two genomes using the minimum number of common intervals is NP-complete and we give a simple heuristic for this problem. We illustrate the effectiveness of this first approach using common intervals of sequences on two datasets, respectively 8 γ-proteobacterial genomes and the human and mouse whole genomes.


Gene Pair Orthologous Gene Maximal Subset Common Interval Xylella Fastidiosa 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bairoch, A., et al.: The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt). Nucleic Acids Res. 159, D154–D159 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belda, E., Moya, A., Silva, F.J.: Genome rearrangement distances and gene order phylogeny in γ-proteobacteria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22(6), 1456–1467 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blin, G., Chauve, C., Fertin, G.: The breakpoints distance for signed sequences. In: CompBioNets 2004: Algorithms & computational methods for biochemical and evolutionary networks. Texts in Algorithmics, vol. 3, pp. 3–16. King’s Coll. Pub., London (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blin, G., Rizzi, R.: Conserved interval distance computation between non-trivial genomes. In: Wang, L. (ed.) COCOON 2005. LNCS, vol. 3595, pp. 22–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blin, G., Chauve, C., Fertin, G.: Gene order and phylogenetic reconstruction: application to γ-proteobacteria. In: McLysaght, A., Huson, D.H. (eds.) RECOMB 2005. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3678, pp. 11–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bourque, G., Yacef, Y., El-Mabrouk, N.: Maximizing synteny blocks to identify ancestral homologs. In: McLysaght, A., Huson, D.H. (eds.) RECOMB 2005. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3678, pp. 21–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryant, D.: The complexity of calculating exemplar distances. In: Comparative Genomics: Empirical and Analytical Approaches to Gene Order Dynamics, Map Alignment, and the Evolution of Gene Families, pp. 207–212. Kluwer Acad. Press, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burgetz, I.J., Shariff, S., Pang, A., Tillier, E.R.M.: Positional homology in bacterial genomes. Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 2, 42–55 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Byrne, K.P., Wolfe, K.H.: The Yeast Gene Order Browser: combining curated homology and syntenic context reveals gene fate in polyploid species. Genome Res. 15(10), 1456–1461 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cannon, S.B., Kozik, A., Chan, B., Michelmore, R., Young, N.D.: DiagHunter and GenoPix2D: programs for genomic comparisons, large-scale homology discovery and visualization. Genome Biology 4, R68 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chauve, C., Fertin, G., Rizzi, R., Vialette, S.: Genomes containing duplicates are hard to compare. In: Alexandrov, V.N., van Albada, G.D., Sloot, P.M.A., Dongarra, J. (eds.) ICCS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3992, pp. 783–790. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, X., Zheng, J., Fu, Z., Nan, P., Zhong, Y., Lonardi, S., Jiang, T.: Assignment of orthologous genes via genome rearrangement. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 2(4), 302–315 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chauve, C., Diekmann, Y., Hebber, S., Mixtacki, J., Rahmann, S., Stoye, J.: On Common Intervals with Errors Report 2006-02, Technische Fakultät der Universität Bielefeld, Abteilung Informationstechnik (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fu, Z., Chen, X., Vacic, V., Nan, P., Zhong, Y., Jiang, T.: A parsimony approach to genome-wide ortholog assignment. In: Apostolico, A., Guerra, C., Istrail, S., Pevzner, P.A., Waterman, M. (eds.) RECOMB 2006. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3909, pp. 578–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glass, J.I., et al.: Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103(2), 425–430 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldstein, A., Kolman, P., Zheng, J.: Minimum common string partition problem: Hardness and approximations. In: Fleischer, R., Trippen, G. (eds.) ISAAC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3341, pp. 473–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haas, B.J., Dechler, A.L., Wortman, J.R., Salzberg, S.L.: DAGchainer: a tool for mining segmental genome duplication and synteny. Bioinformatics 20(18), 3643–3646 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    He, X., Goldwasser, M.H.: Identifying conserved gene clusters in the presence of homology families. J. Comput. Biol. 12(6), 638–656 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoberman, R., Durand, D.: The incompatible desiderata of gene cluster properties. In: McLysaght, A., Huson, D.H. (eds.) RECOMB 2005. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3678, pp. 73–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lerat, E., Daubin, V., Moran, N.A.: From gene trees to organismal phylogeny in prokaryotes: the case of the γ-Proteobacteria. PLoS Biol. 1(1), E19 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sankoff, D.: Genome rearrangement with gene families. Bioinformatics 15(11), 909–917 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt, T., Stoye, J.: Quadratic time algorithms for finding common intervals in two and more sequences. In: Sahinalp, S.C., Muthukrishnan, S.M., Dogrusoz, U. (eds.) CPM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3109, pp. 97–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swenson, K.M., Marron, M., Earnest-DeYoung, J.V., Moret, B.M.E.: Approximating the true evolutionary distance between two genomes. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments and the Second Workshop on Analytic Algorithmics and Combinatorics (ALENEX/ANALCO), pp. 121–129. SIAM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Swenson, K.M., Pattengale, N.D., Moret, B.M.E.: A framework for orthology assignment from gene rearrangement data. In: McLysaght, A., Huson, D.H. (eds.) RECOMB 2005. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3678, pp. 11–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillaume Blin
    • 1
  • Annie Chateau
    • 2
    • 3
  • Cedric Chauve
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Yannick Gingras
    • 3
  1. 1.IGM-LabInfo – UMR CNRS 8049Université Marne-la-ValléeMarne-la-ValléeFrance
  2. 2.LaCIMUniversité du Québec À MontréalMontréalCanada
  3. 3.CGLUniversité du Québec ÀMontréal
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations