Search

Five years after the completion of the sequence of the Drosophila melanogaster genome, the number of protein-coding genes it contains remains a matter of debate; the number of computational gene predictions greatly exceeds the number of validated gene annotations. We have assembled a collection of >10,000 gene predictions that do not overlap existing gene annotations and have developed a process for their validation that allows us to efficiently prioritize and experimentally validate predictions from various sources by sequencing RT-PCR products to confirm gene structures. Our data provide experimental evidence for 122 protein-coding genes. Our analyses suggest that the entire collection of predictions contains only ≈700 additional protein-coding genes. Although we cannot rule out the discovery of genes with unusual features that make them refractory to existing methods, our results suggest that the D. melanogaster genome contains ≈14,000 protein-coding genes.

microRNAs (miRNAs) are 21–22-nucleotide noncoding RNAs that are widely believed to regulate complementary mRNA targets. However, due to the modest amount of pairing involved, only a few out of the hundreds of known animal miRNAs have thus far been connected to mRNA targets. Here, we considered the possibility that miRNAs might regulate non-mRNA targets, namely other miRNAs. To do so, we conducted a systematic assessment of the nearly complete catalogs of animal miRNAs for potential miRNA:miRNA complements. Our analysis uncovered several compelling examples that strongly suggest a function for miRNA duplexes, thus adding a potential layer of regulatory sophistication to the small RNA world. Interestingly, the most striking examples involve miRNAs complementary to members of the K-box family and Brd-box family, two classes of miRNAs previously implicated in regulation of Notch target genes. We emphasize that patterns of nucleotide constraint indicate that miRNA complementarity is not a simple consequence of miRNA:miRNA* complementarity; however, our findings do suggest that the potential regulatory consequences of the latter also deserve investigation.

The well-established inaccuracy of purely computational methods for annotating genome sequences necessitates an interactive tool to allow biological experts to refine these approximations by viewing and independently evaluating the data supporting each annotation. Apollo was developed to meet this need, enabling curators to inspect genome annotations closely and edit them. FlyBase biologists successfully used Apollo to annotate the Drosophila melanogaster genome and it is increasingly being used as a starting point for the development of customized annotation editing tools for other genome projects.