GBE
A New Database (GCD) on Genome Composition for
Eukaryote and Prokaryote Genome Sequences and Their
Initial Analyses
Kirill Kryukov1,2, Kenta Sumiyama1, Kazuho Ikeo2,3, Takashi Gojobori2,3, and Naruya Saitou1,*
1

Division of Population Genetics, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan

2

Genome Network Project, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan

3

DNA Data Analysis Laboratory, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan*Corresponding author: E-mail: saitounr@lab.nig.ac.jp.
Accepted: 8 March 2012

Eukaryote genomes contain many noncoding regions, and they are quite complex. To understand these complexities, weconstructed a database, Genome Composition Database, for the whole genome composition statistics for 101 eukaryote
genome data, as well as more than 1,000 prokaryote genomes. Frequencies of all possible one to ten oligonucleotides werecounted for each genome, and these observed values were compared with expected values computed under observed
oligonucleotide frequencies of length 1–4. Deviations from expected values were much larger for eukaryotes thanprokaryotes, except for fungal genomes. Mammalian genomes showed the largest deviation among animals. The results ofcomparison are available online at http://esper.lab.nig.ac.jp/genome-composition-database/.
Key words: GCD, oligonucleotide frequency, alignment-free sequence comparison.

Introduction
Noncoding regions are the major part of eukaryote genomes, and most of them are believed to evolve neutrally(Kimura 1983). Under this assumption, we expect thatthe frequency of a particular short oligonucleotide, orDNA word, of 10 bp or shorter should be primarily determined through accumulation of neutral mutations, andthe total set of frequencies of all DNA words of certain
length should follow some simple statistical rules. Oligonucleotide frequencies of one genome can provide a usefulmechanism of genome comparison (Karlin 2005), including
phylogeny reconstruction (Takahashi et al. 2009). Most
frequently, such comparisons are based on a dinucleotide
composition model (Karlin and Mrazek 1997; Gentles andKarlin 2001) or on self-organizing maps (Abe et al.
2003). It may be better to examine longer oligonucleotide
compositions. We created a series of statistical models
predicting the frequencies of word of up to 4 nt in a genome. We retrieved all available complete eukaryote andprokaryote genomes, constructed such models for them,and compared the actual word frequencies with thosepredicted by the models to determine the discrepancy.
Here, we present a database, called Genome Composition Database (GCD), which shows how accurately each genome can be approximated by a model. The GCD also
provides the sequences of over- and underrepresented
DNA words. The unique point of this database is that itallows to compare compositional complexity of genomes
and to analyze over- or underrepresentation of particularoligonucleotides.

Materials and Methods
Available complete genomes were collected from NCBI
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/; Wheeler et al. 2007),
Ensembl (http://uswest.ensembl.org/; Flicek et al. 2012), University of California–Santa Cruz (http://genome.ucsc.edu/;
Fujita et al. 2011), FlyBase (http://flybase.org/; McQuilton
et al. 2012), and WormBase (http://www.wormbase.org/;
Harris 2010). Genome sequences of a total of 1,228 species(101 eukaryotes, 1,043 eubacteria, and 84 archaea, as ofª The Author(s) 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

501

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

AbstractGBE

Kryukov et al.

pðwÞ 5

1
;
4L

ð1Þ

where L is the length of w. The mononucleotide composition
model predictspðwÞ 5

LYFðwi Þ þ F½Cðwi Þ&

i51

2M

;

ð2Þ

Table 1R Value Comparison for Selected Species
Model
Uniform Mono
Escherichia coli E24377A
Saccharomyces cerevisiae(baker’s yeast)
Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress)
Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly)Oryzias latipes (medaka)
Anolis carolinensis (lizard)
Mus musculus (mouse)

9.5
18.7
72.7
59.7
165.9
251.1
343.9

9.4
9.0

Di

Tri

Tetra

7.6
6.2

5.3
5.0

3.2
3.4

33.6 23.7 18.6 13.9
41.3 29.9 23.1 19.3
115.8 71.2 49.5 37.3
188.9 130.4 110.0 92.1
309.0 219.0 145.1 122.8

NOTE.—This table compares the R values of E. coli, yeast, plant, fruit fly, fish, lizard,
and mouse, respectively, for each of the five models we used, based on words of 8 bp.

where wi is the ith nucleotide of w, F(x) is the observed
frequency of x in the genome sequence, and C(x) is thecomplementary sequence to x. Using the same principle,p(w) from dinucleotide, trinucleotide, and tetranucleotide
composition models can be computed.
The model expectation of the frequency of word w inboth strands of the modeled genome is then given as
follows:EðwÞ 5 2MpðwÞ:ð3Þ

Then, we can define the deviation of the observed frequency from the expected frequency:dðwÞ 5 FðwÞ ! EðwÞ:ð4Þ

Because each of the composition models assumes independence of different genome positions from each other,E(w) follows the binomial distribution, and its variancecan be computed as follows:r2EðwÞ 5 2MpðwÞ½1 ! pðwÞ&:ð5Þ

The standard deviation of E(w) is its square root.

FIG. 1.—Histograms of relative abundances of all oligonucleotides of 8 bp in human genome, according to the five composition models. The R
value computed for each model is used as a horizontal scaling factor. The vertical red line corresponds to the expected frequency. The words placed to
the left of the line are underrepresented and to the right—overrepresented.

502

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

June 2010) were used to construct the database. For every
genome, we created a series of five composition models:
uniform (composition of A, C, G, and T are set to be all25%), mononucleotide, dinucleotide, trinucleotide, and tetranucleotide. Each composition model is based on the total
size and word frequencies of an actual genome.
The uniform composition model has just one parameter—genome size. The mononucleotide model has two
parameters—genome size and GC content. We use both
DNA strands to perform the word counting, so the numberof G bases is always same with number of C, same for A andT, and each DNA word has the same frequency with its
reversed complementary counterpart. Among the 16 dinucleotides, there are 12 that differ from their reversed complementary dinucleotide and 4 that are identical to theirreversed complementary one (CG, GC, AT, and TA). Therefore, the first group of dinucleotides can be described with
six frequencies (12/2) and the second—with four. Subtracting one, and adding the genome size, we obtain ten parameters for the dinucleotide model. In case of trinucleotide
frequencies, none of the trinucleotides are identical to theirreversed complementary counterpart, so the model has 43/2
5 32 parameters. In tetranucleotide case, there are 16
tetranucleotides that are identical to their reversed complementary counterparts, so the tetranucleotide model has(44 ! 16)/2 þ 16 5 136 parameters.
For a genome G of total length M and a DNA word w,
a composition model can be used to compute p(w), whichis the probability of observing w at any particular position in
the genome. For example, the uniform composition model
gives

GBE

GCD on Genome Composition and Their Initial Analyses

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

FIG. 2.—Comparison of R values based on oligonucleotides of 5 bp and all five composition models. (A) Eukaryote genomes (all available in public
databases by October 2010). (B) Representative prokaryote (both eubacteria and archaea) genomes.

We then can define the relative abundance of w, under
this particular model, as follows:rðwÞ 5

dðwÞ
:
rEðwÞ

ð6Þ

This r(w) is 0 for DNA words, occurring in the genome
with exactly the same frequency, as predicted by the composition model. r(w) is positive when the actual frequency islarger than expected by the model. In such cases, we describe that w is overrepresented in the genome, according
to this model. When the actual frequency is smaller
than expected by the model, r(w) is negative, and w isunderrepresented.
Now we can summarize the overall magnitude of over- or
underrepresentation of all DNA words of length L in the
genome (using a particular composition model of choice)as follows:

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

503

GBE

Kryukov et al.

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rw2W ½rðwÞ ! !r &2;
R 5 rrðwÞ 5
4L

genome. Large R implies that many w’s have large absolutevalues of r(w), which means that their actual frequencies arefar from those expected by the model. Thus, a large value ofR signifies that the model’s ability to describe the actual genome is poor.
A good composition model has small value of R, with R
being 0 for the perfect model. An example of such perfectmodel is the L-bp composition model used to predict thefrequencies of words of the same length L bp or shorter.
For instance, the dinucleotide composition model has theexact information about dinucleotide frequencies, so it gives
perfect predictions for 1-bp or 2-bp word frequencies, resulting in R value of 0.
For the longer words, R is typically much larger than 0 fornonrandom sequences. On the other hand, when a random
sequence is modeled using any composition model, theð7Þ

where W is the set of all DNA words of length L and!r 5 Rw2W4LrðwÞ :Because R is the standard deviation of a sample of all r(w)for a particular word length L, the unit of R is the same withthat of r(w), which is rE(w) (standard deviation of the word
frequency, predicted by the model). For each w, RrE(w) gives
the relative number of occurrences of w, which would makew averagely rare or abundant.
R is computed for a particular genome, composition
model, and L and summarizes the ability of the composition
model to predict the frequencies of words of length L in the
Table 2
Underrepresented Oligonucleotides of 10 bp, Example from Human Genome
Rank

Oligonucleotide

Actual Observed
Frequency

Frequency Predictedby the Model

Deviation from the Expected Frequency,
in Model’s Standard Deviations

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

tataaaaaaa (tttttttata)aaattttttc (gaaaaaattt)
tttttttggg (cccaaaaaaa)
aaaaattttt
ttttttggga (tcccaaaaaa)
aaaatttttc (gaaaaatttt)
aaaaaaatat (atattttttt)
aaaaaatttc (gaaatttttt)
aaaaattttg (caaaattttt)
aaaaaatttg (caaatttttt)

45,93329,38919,774
103,832
14,11933,46080,96434,57133,26533,454

115,11089,48072,956
185,936
60,161
89,480153,706
89,48087,27487,274!203.9!200.9!196.9!190.4!187.7!187.3!185.6!183.6!182.8!182.2

NOTE.—Showing ten most underrepresented oligonucleotides, according to the tetranucleotide composition model. Both the actual and the expected frequency are given forboth DNA strands combined, so each word’s frequency is identical with that of its reversed complementary counterpart (given in parentheses).

504

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

FIG. 3.—Average R values for different groups of organisms, with standard deviations, using five different composition models. Standard deviationfor each value is displayed.

GBE

GCD on Genome Composition and Their Initial Analyses

Table 3
Overrepresented Oligonucleotides of 10 bp, Example from Human Genome
Rank

Oligonucleotide

Actual Observed
Frequency

Frequency Predictedby the Model

Deviation from the Expected Frequency,
in Model’s Standard Deviations

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

acacacacac (gtgtgtgtgt)
tgtgtgtgtg (cacacacaca)
cctgtaatcc (ggattacagg)
ctgtaatccc (gggattacag)aaaaaaaaaa (tttttttttt)
ctgggattac (gtaatcccag)
tgtaatccca (tgggattaca)
taatcccagc (gctgggatta)
gattacaggc (gcctgtaatc)
tgcagtgagc (gctcactgca)

1,161,477
1,169,668
835,133
825,499
5,951,413
802,262
856,563
839,950
628,774
580,240

9,207
12,946
6,999
7,235
380,529
7,934
11,024
10,726
7,004
7,705

12008.1
10166.1
9898.39619.49031.28917.58053.08006.57429.16522.3

actual variances of the word frequencies are the same withthe variances predicted by the model; therefore, R is close to
1 in this case (approaching 1 as the sequence becomes
longer).
This is also the case for semirandom sequences, where
the deviation from uniform randomness is at most as complex (controlled by at most as many parameters) as themodel used to analyze the sequence. For example, a semirandom GC-biased sequence can be accurately modeled by
the nucleotide composition model, or any more complex
model, but not by the uniform composition model. The
R values obtained with the uniform composition model
for such sequence are much larger than 1, whereas othermodels still produce R close to 1. Thus, the R values directlyreflect compositional complexity of the sequence.
Figure 1 illustrates this by showing the example histograms of relative abundances for all words of length 8in the human genome, using five different models. The
strange bimodal-looking shape of the uniform model histogram results from the extreme depletion of CpG dinucleotide in mammalian (including human) genomes. Any 8-bp
word containing CpG will appear as strongly underrepresented when comparing the actual frequencies with thosepredicted by the uniform model. So, all such words contribute to the left peak on the histogram, whereas words without CpG form the other peak, in agreement with themodel.
We computed R for all five composition models for available complete genomes, both eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
Table 1 shows R values for seven representative species. We
then extracted unusually rare and unusually abundant
words, which we define as those having jr(w)j . R. These
DNA words, together with the corresponding statistics, areavailable for viewing and downloading at the GCD online.
Next, we analyzed the spacing patterns of individual DNA
words in complete genomes. Looking at all occurrences ofa particular DNA word in the genome, we can extract the
distances between the genomic locations of every twoneighboring occurrences and use this set of distances asa spacing data set for this particular word. Sample parameters (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) arecomputed for such data set. What would be the physicalmeaning of those parameters? The mean distance approximately equals to the genome size divided by total numberof occurrences, so it correlates with the reciprocal of theword frequency. Standard deviation shows how evenly isa particular word distributed in the genome. Skewness
shows whether extremely unusual spacing values for thisword tend to be large or small. Kurtosis shows if the word
tends to form clusters and the density of those clusters
relative to the distance between them.
Taking a particular parameter for all words of length L, we
get a sample of 4L values. The nature of this sample would
characterize the genome as a whole. Furthermore, selecting
only subset of DNA words with parameters falling into
particular ranges, we can extract interesting DNA words.
In order to verify the models and better understand theparameters, we constructed a range or semirandom sequences using a random sequence generator (Kryukov K,
unpublished data). Each semirandom sequence was basedon particular real genome used as template (e.g., the humangenome): It had the same size with the template genome,
and it imitated N-bp composition of the template genome,with N ranging from 1 to 4. Thus, we constructed four semirandom genomes based on a single actual genome sequence. We used genomes of five species as templates:
human, Anolis carolinensis (lizard), Xenopus tropicalis (frog),Oryzias latipes (fish), and Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly).
The resulting 20 semirandom genomes were added into the
GCD.

Results
Figure 2 shows the comparison of R values for 101 eukaryote genomes used in this study, as well as representative
prokaryote genomes, computed for 5 bp oligonucleotides.

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

505

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

NOTE.—Showing ten most overrepresented oligonucleotides, according to the tetranucleotide composition model.

GBE

Kryukov et al.

Such R values represent how well different composition
models can predict 5-bp composition of the genome. Panel
A shows all eukaryote genomes and panel B shows representative prokaryote genomes. Supplementary figure 1(Supplementary Material online) shows comparison of all
prokaryote genomes included in this study. R values of fivecomposition models are displayed as differently colored
areas. As can be seen, R varies greatly among species
and groups of species. Mammals are compositionally more
complex than nonmammal vertebrates, land vertebrates are
more complex than fishes, and fishes are more complex thanmost invertebrates and plants, which are still more complex

506

than fungi and protists. Compositional genome complexityof prokaryotes, represented by R values, is comparable withthat of fungi.
Figure 3 shows the average R values for different groupsof organisms, with standard deviation. Under all five composition models, statistically significant difference is observed between the R values of mammals andnonmammal vertebrates (Mann–Whitney P , 0.001, see
supplementary table 1, Supplementary Material online fortest results). Statistically significant difference is also observed between nonmammal vertebrates and invertebrates.
Interestingly, R values of invertebrates are close to those of

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

FIG. 4.—Euclidean distances between composition vectors (oligonucleotide frequencies) of sample data sets and complete vertebrate genomes forthree composition models (dinucleotide, trinucleotide, and tetranucleotide). (A) When sampled data set is human genome. One thousand samples wereused, where each sample consisted of 481 sequences of 262 bp each (for a total size of each sample same with the UCE data set), taken from therandom locations in the complete human genome. Also, panel (A) shows the standard deviations of the distances. (B) The composition of the UCE data
set is compared with that of complete vertebrate genomes. (C) The composition of human miRNA seed sequences is compared with that of complete
vertebrate genomes.

GBE

GCD on Genome Composition and Their Initial Analyses

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

FIG. 4.—Continued

plants and significantly higher than those of fungi, protists,or prokaryotes (archaea and eubacteria). In terms of R values, fungi genomes are more similar to those of prokaryotes
than those of other eukaryotes.
Significantly, over- and underrepresented DNA words
may be biologically important. Tables 2 and 3 show the partial lists of under- and overrepresented words of 10 bp inhuman genome, using tetranucleotide composition model.
The complete lists of under- and overrepresented words, forevery of the included genomes, for each of the five composition models, and for DNA words of up to 10 bp for eukaryotes and 8 bp for prokaryotes, are available at the GCD
online. Both the actual and the expected frequency are
given for both DNA strands combined, so each word’s frequency is identical with that of its reversed complementary
counterpart (given in parentheses).

Other than the reporting the general compositional
complexity, the GCD can be used to compute the distances between the composition vectors of various complete
genomes and submitted sequences (similar to the method
taken by Takahashi et al. 2009). We used this tool to analyze three classes of human sequences: random sample
from the human genome, conserved sequences of unknown function, and conserved functionally importantsequences. Although sequences from these three classes
are all found in the human genome, they have different
nature and evolutionary history, allowing interesting comparison. The UCE data set (human–mouse–rat ultraconserved elements, 481 sequence, 126 kbp in total,
Bejerano et al. 2004) was used as the data set of conserved sequences of unknown function. Human microRNA (miRNA) seed sequences (1,100 sequences from

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

507

GBE

Kryukov et al.

miRBase, 7.7 kbp in total, Kozomara and Griffiths-Jones
2011) were used as functionally important conserved
sequences.
Figure 4A shows the average Euclidean distances between the composition vectors obtained from randomly
sampled human sequence and composition vectors of complete vertebrate genomes. Each sample was chosen to havethe same number of sequences and average sequencelength with the UCE data set: 481 sequences, 262 bp
each. One thousand such samples were produced. Di-,
tri-, and tetranucleotide composition vectors are used forcomparison. As expected, primate genomes are the closest
to human sample, and more diverged species show progressively larger distances, with some fluctuations.
Figure 4B shows the comparison for human–mouse–rat
ultraconserved elements. The compositional distances
between the UCE and the complete vertebrate genomes

508

appear to be relatively uniform among vertebrates andmuch larger than those for the random human sample. Interestingly, these sequences appear to be compositionallyclose to lizard, fish, and frog.
Figure 4C shows the compositional distances between
human miRNA sequence data set and complete vertebrate
genomes. Again the distances are uniformly large. Platypus
and the fishes are compositionally the closest to this dataset.
To further investigate the differences between thesethree data sets, we computed the average distances by combining the genomes into four groups (fig. 5). The distances
show a steep increase in case of random human sample (fig.
5A), while much more uniformity can be seen for UCE andmiRNA seed data sets (fig. 5B and C).
Figure 6 shows the plots for the pairs of spacing parameters, taken for 8 bp oligonucleotides for six species—human,

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

FIG. 4.—Continued

GBE

GCD on Genome Composition and Their Initial Analyses

Discussion

FIG. 5.—Average compositional distance (Euclidean distances
between the composition vectors) between sample data sets andcomplete genomes grouped into four groups. Panels (A, B, and C)
correspond to panels (A, B, and C) of figure 4. Standard deviations of
the distances are shown for all cases.

lizard, fish, fruit fly, yeast, and Escherichia coli. Although theinterpretation is difficult, more structure can be seen in theplots of more complex organisms.
Figure 7 shows spacing plots for four random genomes(generated using human genome as a template), the com-

The GCD provides a convenient measure of relative complexity of various genomes from statistical point of view.
A genome is compositionally simple if its composition canbe accurately described by a simple model. A set of R values
for various word length and models can tell us how complex
a particular genome is?
As figure 2 shows, R values become smaller with theincrease of model complexity—as expected, a more complex model can describe genome composition more accurately, which results in smaller discrepancy. We observe
that, generally speaking, R values are related to the generalcomplexity of the organism. Remarkably, even tetranucleotide compositional models are unable to give good predictions of 5-bp composition in case of complex genomes,
particularly for mammals and land vertebrates.
Figure 3 confirms that compositional complexity ofa genome is in good correlation with general complexityof the organism. Mammalian genomes are significantly
more compositionally complex than genomes of any otherorganisms. Compositional discrepancy R computed with different composition models seems to be useful as a measureof compositional complexity of the genome.
The extremely rare and extremely abundant sequences, as
shown in tables 2 and 3, suggest the possible mechanisms ofcreating compositional complexity. The most underrepresented 10 bp DNA words (using tetranucleotide composition
model) seem to be found on the boundary of mononucleotide repeats, particularly poly-A to poly-T boundary (words 1,
2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in table 2) also poly-A to poly-C (words 3
and 5 in table 2). This means that such boundary is much lesscommon, than suggested by the 4-bp composition.
Among the top overrepresented words, there are poly-A(word 5 in table 3), dinucleotide repeats (words 1 and 2 inGenome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

509

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

plete actual human genome and the repeat-masked versionof the human genome. Repeat-masked is included because
complexity is often associated with repetitive sequences. In
case of the ‘‘Hs Random 1’’ sequence, discrete elements appear in the figure. Those elements correspond to the groupsof DNA words containing different number of GC. With GC
contents being the only parameter for constructing the sequence, DNA words with the same number of GC will haveexactly same compositional properties, blurred only by randomness of the sequence. In case of ‘‘Hs Random 2’’ similargrouping happens, this time depending on number of CpG
each particular word may contain. Going into more complex
semirandom sequence, the discreteness becomes less clear,and the plots are getting closer to that for the real humangenome. Still significant difference remains between
the plots of semirandom and real sequences and very little
difference between the plots of repeat-masked and thecomplete human genome.

GBE

Kryukov et al.

table 3), as well as fragments of sequence ‘‘gcctgtaatcccagc’’ (words 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 in table 3), which has about
800,000 occurrences in the human genome comparedwith the expected number of about 7,000–10,000. Thissequence being unusual is already reported by Valle(1993); however, no explanation for the cause was given.
Figure 4 shows the compositional distances between
three sequence data sets (human sample, UCE, and miRNAseeds) and vertebrate genomes. Figure 5 summarizes the
distances for organism groups, including invertebrates.
Although in all three cases, the sequences are containedin the human genome, the compositional distances of thosesequences to various genomes show very different pictures.
The random sample behaves as expected—the compositional distance is increasing with the increase of divergencefrom human. However, UCE and miRNA seed data sets show
more or less uniform compositional distances from various
vertebrate genomes. This suggests that those sequences became conserved before the emergence of mammals. In case510

of miRNA seed sequences, the composition distances to allvertebrate genomes are more or less uniform, suggesting
those sequences were fixed much earlier than the emergence of vertebrates. Composition of the UCE and miRNA
seed sequences is frozen and represents the composition of
the ancestoral genome, at the time where the fixation occurred. The compositional distance from the current day vertebrates is larger for miRNA seed data set because themiRNA fixation occurred much earlier, so larger compositional distance exists between the ancestoral genome andcurrent day genomes. Thus, this allows us to discuss thecomposition of premammal vertebrate genome (in caseof UCE data set) and early animal genome (in case of miRNAseeds).
Oligonucleotide spacing patterns, summarized as sample
parameters and displayed as scatterplots (figs. 6 and 7), provide a further interesting view into the compositional complexity. It is apparent that the human genome is very
different from the semirandom sequences that imitate only

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

FIG. 6.—Plots of the spacing distribution parameters for six species, based on oligonucleotides of 8 bp. Each row represents one genome.
Different columns show plots for different pairs of parameters, from left to right: mean spacing (x axis) versus standard deviation (y axis), mean (x) versus
skewness (y), mean (x) versus log(kurtosis) (y), standard deviation (x) versus skewness (y), standard deviation (x) versus log(kurtosis) (y), and skewness (x)versus log(kurtosis) (y). Each dot in the plot represents a particular 8 bp DNA word, so 48 words constitute the data set in each case.

GBE

GCD on Genome Composition and Their Initial Analyses

some compositional properties of the actual genome. Often
we attribute complexity to the abundant repetitive elementsin the vertebrate genome. However, the spacing scatterplots
for the repeat-masked human genome looks similar to thoseof the complete genome and different from those based on
the semirandom sequences. It remains to be seen whether
the apparent complexity results from the isochore structureof the mammalian genomes (Bernardi et al. 1985), fromdecaying ancient repeats, or from some other mechanism.
The online GCD provides the means of comparing thecompositional complexity of various complete genome
and extracting unusual DNA words. The composition
parameters computed using five models, as well as histograms, are available. Also spacing patterns, summarized
as parameter histograms and 2D scatterplots, are included.
In addition that database features a facility for submitting
a sequence data set and performing composition analysis
and comparison with various complete genomes.
Compositional models that we used in this study only utilize the word frequencies as parameters. The natural nextchallenge is to design an integrated composition model,
which would be based on both frequencies and spacing pat-terns. Such model would better approximate the genome
and thus would allow focusing more closely on the realsource of complexity.

Supplementary Material
Supplementary figure 1 and table 1 are available at
Genome Biology and Evolution online (http://www.gbe.
oxfordjournals.org/).

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan,
to N.S. K.K. was additionally supported by the Human
Genome Network Project.

Literature Cited
Abe T, et al. 2003. Informatics for unveiling hidden genome signatures.
Genome Res. 13:693–702.
Bejerano G, et al. 2004. Ultraconserved elements in the humangenome. Science 304:1321–1325.
Bernardi G, et al. 1985. The mosaic genome of warm-blooded
vertebrates. Science 228:953–958.

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012

511

Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

FIG. 7.—Plot of the spacing distribution parameters for semirandom sequences, compared with the real human genome, as well as repeat-masked
one. Based on oligonucleotides of 10 bp. Semirandom genomes 1, 2, 3, and 4 are constructed using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-bp composition of the actual
human genome.

GBE

Kryukov et al.

Flicek P, et al. 2012. Ensembl 2012. Nucleic Acids Res. 40:D84–D90.
Fujita PA, et al. 2011. The UCSC Genome Browser database: update2011. Nucleic Acids Res. 39:D876–D882.
Gentles AJ, Karlin S. 2001. Genome-scale compositional comparisons ineukaryotes. Genome Res. 11:540–546.
Harris TW. 2010. WormBase: a comprehensive resource for nematoderesearch. Nucleic Acids Res. 38:D463–D467.
Karlin S. 2005. Statistical signals in bioinformatics. Proc Natl Acad Sci
U S A. 102:13355–13362.
Karlin S, Mrazek J. 1997. Compositional differences within andbetween eukaryotic genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 94:
10227–10232.
Kimura M. 1983. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Kozomara A, Griffiths-Jones S. 2011. miRBase: integrating microRNA
annotation and deep-sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 39:
D152–D157.
McQuilton P, et al. 2012. FlyBase 101—the basics of navigating FlyBase.
Nucleic Acids Res. 40:D706–D714.
Takahashi M, Kryukov K, Saitou N. 2009. Estimation of bacterial species
phylogeny through oligonucleotide frequency distances. Genomics
93:525–533.
Valle G. 1993. Discover 1: a new program to search for unusually
represented DNA motifs. Nucleic Acids Res. 21:5152–5156.
Wheeler DL, et al. 2007. Database resources of the National Center for
Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 35:D5–D12.

Associate editor: Eugene Koonin
Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Idenkagaku Kenkyujo on July 9, 2012

512

Genome Biol. Evol. 4(4):501–512. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs026 Advance Access publication March 14, 2012