Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan;43(Database issue):D261-9.
doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1223. Epub 2014 Nov 26.

Expanded microbial genome coverage and improved protein family annotation in the COG database

Affiliations

Expanded microbial genome coverage and improved protein family annotation in the COG database

Michael Y Galperin et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Jan.

Abstract

Microbial genome sequencing projects produce numerous sequences of deduced proteins, only a small fraction of which have been or will ever be studied experimentally. This leaves sequence analysis as the only feasible way to annotate these proteins and assign to them tentative functions. The Clusters of Orthologous Groups of proteins (COGs) database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/COG/), first created in 1997, has been a popular tool for functional annotation. Its success was largely based on (i) its reliance on complete microbial genomes, which allowed reliable assignment of orthologs and paralogs for most genes; (ii) orthology-based approach, which used the function(s) of the characterized member(s) of the protein family (COG) to assign function(s) to the entire set of carefully identified orthologs and describe the range of potential functions when there were more than one; and (iii) careful manual curation of the annotation of the COGs, aimed at detailed prediction of the biological function(s) for each COG while avoiding annotation errors and overprediction. Here we present an update of the COGs, the first since 2003, and a comprehensive revision of the COG annotations and expansion of the genome coverage to include representative complete genomes from all bacterial and archaeal lineages down to the genus level. This re-analysis of the COGs shows that the original COG assignments had an error rate below 0.5% and allows an assessment of the progress in functional genomics in the past 12 years. During this time, functions of many previously uncharacterized COGs have been elucidated and tentative functional assignments of many COGs have been validated, either by targeted experiments or through the use of high-throughput methods. A particularly important development is the assignment of functions to several widespread, conserved proteins many of which turned out to participate in translation, in particular rRNA maturation and tRNA modification. The new version of the COGs is expected to become an important tool for microbial genomics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
A protein family (COG) page in the COG database. For each phylum (or for Firmicutes and Proteobacteria, for each class), the numbers indicate the number of organisms that have a COG member and the total number of organisms from that phylum (class) in the COG database. Each COG member is represented by its gene index (gi) number in the NCBI Protein database (22) and is linked to the respective entry in RefSeq database (28). The phyla (classes) with no COG members are collapsed. The phylum, class and organism names are linked to the respective entries in the NCBI Taxonomy database (23).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
COG coverage of various bacterial phyla. The columns represent the average fraction of proteins from the organisms in the given phylum that are not included in COGs (gray), assigned to the R or S categories in COGs (yellow) or assigned to other COG functional categories (green). For Firmicutes and Proteobacteria, coverage is shown at the class level.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tatusov R.L., Koonin E.V., Lipman D.J. A genomic perspective on protein families. Science. 1997;278:631–637. - PubMed
    1. Marchler-Bauer A., Anderson J.B., Cherukuri P.F., DeWeese-Scott C., Geer L.Y., Gwadz M., He S., Hurwitz D.I., Jackson J.D., Ke Z., et al. CDD: a Conserved Domain Database for protein classification. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:D192–D196. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marchler-Bauer A., Zheng C., Chitsaz F., Derbyshire M.K., Geer L.Y., Geer R.C., Gonzales N.R., Gwadz M., Hurwitz D.I., Lanczycki C.J., et al. CDD: conserved domains and protein three-dimensional structure. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D348–D352. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Overbeek R., Olson R., Pusch G.D., Olsen G.J., Davis J.J., Disz T., Edwards R.A., Gerdes S., Parrello B., Shukla M., et al. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST) Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D206–D214. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Markowitz V.M., Chen I.M., Palaniappan K., Chu K., Szeto E., Pillay M., Ratner A., Huang J., Woyke T., Huntemann M., et al. IMG 4 version of the integrated microbial genomes comparative analysis system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D560–D567. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms