Commentary on Genome Analysis

Ankith Kumar^*
*Correspondence: Ankith Kumar, Department of Biotechnology, Kastamonu University, Turkey, Email:

Description

The prediction of genes in uncharacterized genomic sequences is referred to as genome analysis. The draught version of the human genome sequence was announced in the twenty-first century. In both the plant and animal worlds, model organisms have been sequenced. The rate of genome annotation, on the other hand, is not keeping up with the rate of genome sequencing. It takes a long time to annotate a genome experimentally. The ability to design computational methods for gene prediction is in high demand. For prokaryotes, when all genes are translated into corresponding mRNA and ultimately into proteins, computational gene prediction is very easy. For eukaryotic cells, the process is more complicated since the coding DNA sequence is broken by random regions called introns [1-5].

Functional genomics

Functional genomics is a branch of molecular biology that aims to characterise gene (and protein) activities and interactions using the massive amounts of data generated by genomic initiatives (such as genome sequencing). Functional genomics focuses on dynamic features of genomic information such as gene transcription, translation, and protein–protein interactions rather than static aspects such as DNA sequence or structures. At the level of genes, RNA transcripts, and protein products, functional genomics tries to answer questions concerning the function of DNA. Functional genomics studies are distinguished by their genome-wide approach to these concerns, which often use high-throughput methodologies rather than the more traditional "gene-by-gene" approach.

Structural genomics

The goal of structural genomics is to characterise the three-dimensional structure of each protein encoded by a genome. By combining experimental and modelling methodologies, this genome-based methodology provides for a high-throughput method of structure determination. The main distinction between structural genomics and standard structural prediction is that structural genomics tries to figure out the structure of every protein encoded by the genome rather than just one. Structure prediction can be done more quickly using a combination of experimental and modelling approaches now that fullgenome sequences are available, especially because the availability of large numbers of sequenced genomes and previously solved protein structures allows scientists to model protein structure on previously solved homologs.

Epigenomics

Epigenomics is the study of the epigenome, or the whole collection of epigenetic alterations on a cell's genetic material. Reversible changes to a cell's DNA or histones that impact gene expression without changing the DNA sequence are known as epigenetic alterations. DNA methylation and histone modification are two of the well-studied epigenetic changes. Epigenetic changes are engaged in a variety of cellular processes, including differentiation/development and cancer, and play a key role in gene expression and regulation. Epigenetics research on a worldwide scale has only lately been possible because to the application of genomic high-throughput techniques.

Metagenomics

The study of metagenomes, or genetic material extracted directly from environmental samples, is known as metagenomics. Environmental genomics, ecogenomics, and community genomics are all terms used to describe the large area. Early environmental gene sequencing cloned certain genes (typically the 16S rRNA gene) to provide a profile of diversity in a natural sample, whereas classical microbiology and microbial genome sequencing rely on produced clonal cultures. Cultivation-based approaches have missed the great majority of microbial biodiversity, according to this research. To get mostly unbiased samples of all genes from all individuals of the tested groups, recent research have used "shotgun" Sanger sequencing or massively parallel pyrosequencing.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

References

1. Rodríguez, Gustavo R, Stéphane Muños, Claire Anderson and Sung-Chur Sim, et al. “Distribution of SUN, OVATE, LC, and FAS in the Tomato Germplasm and the Relationship to Fruit Shape Diversity.”  Plant Physiol 156(2011): 275-285.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Chaim, Arnon Ben, Yelena Borovsky, GU Rao and Bahattin Tanyolac. “fs3. 1: a major fruit shape QTL conserved in Capsicum.” Genome 46(2003):1–9.

Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Han, Koeun, Hee-Jin Jeong, Hee-Bum Yang and Sung-Min Kang, et al. “An ultra-high-density bin map facilitates high-throughput qtl mapping of horticultural traits in pepper (Capsicum annuum).” DNA Res 23(2016): 81–91

Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Brewer, Marin Talbot, Lixin Lang, Kikuo Fujimura and Nancy Dujmovic, et al. “Development of a controlled vocabulary and sofware application to analyze fruit shape variation in tomato and other plant species.”  Plant physiology 141(2006):15–25.

Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Yarnes, Shawn C., Hamid Ashrafi, Sebastian Reyes-Chin-Wo and Theresa A. Hill, et al. “Identifcation of qtls for capsaicinoids, fruit quality, and plant architecture-related traits in an interspecifc Capsicum RIL population.” Genome 56(2012): 61–74.

Google Scholar, Crossref