Manual versus automatic annotation of transposable elements: case studies in Drosophila melanogaster and Aedes albopictus, balancing accuracy and biological relevance
Tomás Carrasco-ValenzuelaiD, Alba MarinoiD, Jessica M. StoreriD, Iago BonniciiD, Camila Junqueira MazzoniiD, Michaël C. FontaineiD, Annabelle HaudryiD, Matthieu BoulesteixiD, Anna-Sophie Fiston-LavieriD
Abstract
Transposable elements (TEs) play a pivotal role in genome evolution, yet their detection and annotation remain challenging due to the limitations of current methods. Manual curation is considered the gold standard for generating TE libraries, particularly for TE focused studies, although it requires extensive training and time. With the rapid increase in genome assembly publications and the growing need for large-scale comparative analyses, automated software for TE annotation has become indispensable. This study compares manual and automated approaches to TE detection and annotation, focusing on two species: Drosophila melanogaster and Aedes albopictus. In D. melanogaster, a species with a well-annotated TE repertoire and a smaller genome, the differences between manual curation (MCTE) and automated annotation (ATTE) are relatively minor. However, significant differences arise when analysing Ae. albopictus, a species with a larger genome and higher TE diversity. While automated methods identified a greater number of TEs, including many smaller and fragmented elements, manual curation provided more detailed classifications and on average larger consensi. Automated pipelines offer a viable alternative for genome-wide analyses such as TE content estimate, particularly when time and resources are limited. However, caution is advised when interpreting results, as finer details of TE dynamics may be overlooked. This study highlights that the choice of annotation method depends on the intended analysis. Manual curation is more suitable for TE population genomics and studies focusing on recent transposable element activity, while automated methods are appropriate for larger comparative analyses or genome assembly projects. Ultimately, both methods have their strengths and limitations, and understanding the specific features of the genome and repeatome under study is essential for selecting the appropriate approach.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 2
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- MCHelper automatically curates transposable element libraries across eukaryotic species
Simón Orozco-Arias, Pío Sierra, … Josefa González·bioRxiv·Oct 17, 2023
- Earl Grey: a fully automated user-friendly transposable element annotation and analysis pipeline
Tobias Baril, James D. Galbraith, Alexander Hayward·Molecular Biology and EvolutionPeer-reviewed·Mar 26, 2024
- HiTE: An accurate dynamic boundary adjustment approach for full-length Transposable Elements detection and annotation in Genome Assemblies
Kang Hu, Minghua Xu, … Jianxin Wang·bioRxiv·May 23, 2023
- TEtrimmer: a novel tool to automate the manual curation of transposable elements
Jiangzhao Qian, Hang Xue, … Ralph Panstruga·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Sep 25, 2025
- Software Evaluation for de novo Detection of Transposons
Matías Rodriguez, Wojciech Makałowski·bioRxiv·Feb 8, 2021
- Earl Grey ParTEA: scalable, consistent transposable element annotation from pangenomes to deep phylogenetic scopes
Tobias J Baril, Alice Feurtey, Daniel Croll·bioRxiv·Nov 5, 2026