Dataset Information

Revealing biases inherent in recombination protocols.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The recombination of homologous genes is an effective protein engineering tool to evolve proteins. DNA shuffling by gene fragmentation and reassembly has dominated the literature since its first publication, but this fragmentation-based method is labor intensive. Recently, a fragmentation-free PCR based protocol has been published, termed recombination-dependent PCR, which is easy to perform. However, a detailed comparison of both methods is still missing.

Results

We developed different test systems to compare and reveal biases from DNA shuffling and recombination-dependent PCR (RD-PCR), a StEP-like recombination protocol. An assay based on the reactivation of beta-lactamase was developed to simulate the recombination of point mutations. Both protocols performed similarly here, with slight advantages for RD-PCR. However, clear differences in the performance of the recombination protocols were observed when applied to homologous genes of varying DNA identities. Most importantly, the recombination-dependent PCR showed a less pronounced bias of the crossovers in regions with high sequence identity. We discovered that template variations, including engineered terminal truncations, have significant influence on the position of the crossovers in the recombination-dependent PCR. In comparison, DNA shuffling can produce higher crossover numbers, while the recombination-dependent PCR frequently results in one crossover. Lastly, DNA shuffling and recombination-dependent PCR both produce counter-productive variants such as parental sequences and have chimeras that are over-represented in a library, respectively. Lastly, only RD-PCR yielded chimeras in the low homology situation of GFP/mRFP (45% DNA identity level).

Conclusion

By comparing different recombination scenarios, this study expands on existing recombination knowledge and sheds new light on known biases, which should improve library-creation efforts. It could be shown that the recombination-dependent PCR is an easy to perform alternative to DNA shuffling.

SUBMITTER: Chaparro-Riggers JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2203992 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The use of evolutionary profiles to predict protein secondary structure, as well as other protein structural features, has been standard practice since the 1990s. Using profiles in the input of such predictors, in place or in addition to the sequence itself, leads to significantly more accurate predictions. While profiles can enhance structural signals, their role remains somewhat surprising as proteins do not use profiles when folding in vivo. Furthermore, the same sequence-based redundancy reduction protocols initially derived to train and evaluate sequence-based predictors, have been applied to train and evaluate profile-based predictors. This can lead to unfair comparisons since profiles may facilitate the bleeding of information between training and test sets. Here we use the extensively studied problem of secondary structure prediction to better evaluate the role of profiles and show that: (1) high levels of profile similarity between training and test proteins are observed when using standard sequence-based redundancy protocols; (2) the gain in accuracy for profile-based predictors, over sequence-based predictors, strongly relies on these high levels of profile similarity between training and test proteins; and (3) the overall accuracy of a profile-based predictor on a given protein dataset provides a biased measure when trying to estimate the actual accuracy of the predictor, or when comparing it to other predictors. We show, however, that this bias can be mitigated by implementing a new protocol (EVALpro) which evaluates the accuracy of profile-based predictors as a function of the profile similarity between training and test proteins. Such a protocol not only allows for a fair comparison of the predictors on equally hard or easy examples, but also reduces the impact of choosing a given similarity cutoff when selecting test proteins. The EVALpro program is available in the SCRATCH suite ( www.scratch.proteomics.ics.uci.edu) and can be downloaded at: www.download.igb.uci.edu/#evalpro.

Project description:The structure of ecological interactions is commonly understood through analyses of interaction networks. However, these analyses may be sensitive to sampling biases with respect to both the interactors (the nodes of the network) and interactions (the links between nodes), because the detectability of species and their interactions is highly heterogeneous. These ecological and statistical issues directly affect ecologists' abilities to accurately construct ecological networks. However, statistical biases introduced by sampling are difficult to quantify in the absence of full knowledge of the underlying ecological network's structure. To explore properties of large-scale ecological networks, we developed the software EcoNetGen, which constructs and samples networks with predetermined topologies. These networks may represent a wide variety of communities that vary in size and types of ecological interactions. We sampled these networks with different mathematical sampling designs that correspond to methods used in field observations. The observed networks generated by each sampling process were then analyzed with respect to the number of components, size of components and other network metrics. We show that the sampling effort needed to estimate underlying network properties depends strongly both on the sampling design and on the underlying network topology. In particular, networks with random or scale-free modules require more complete sampling to reveal their structure, compared to networks whose modules are nested or bipartite. Overall, modules with nested structure were the easiest to detect, regardless of the sampling design used. Sampling a network starting with any species that had a high degree (e.g., abundant generalist species) was consistently found to be the most accurate strategy to estimate network structure. Because high-degree species tend to be generalists, abundant in natural communities relative to specialists, and connected to each other, sampling by degree may therefore be common but unintentional in empirical sampling of networks. Conversely, sampling according to module (representing different interaction types or taxa) results in a rather complete view of certain modules, but fails to provide a complete picture of the underlying network. To reduce biases introduced by sampling methods, we recommend that these findings be incorporated into field design considerations for projects aiming to characterize large species interaction networks.