GFF (General Feature Format) specifications document

2000-9-29 The default version for GFF files is now Version 2. This document has been changed to show version 2 as default, with version one alternatives shown where appropriate.

The main change from Version 1 to Version 2 is the requirement for a tag-value type structure (essentially semicolon-separated .ace format) for any additional material on the line, following the mandatory fields. Version 2 also allows '.' as a score, for features for which there is no score. Dumping in version 2 format is implemented in ACEDB.


Essentially all current approaches to feature finding in higher organisms use a variety of recognition methods that give scores to likely signals (starts, splice sites, stops, motifs, etc.) or to extended regions (exons, introns, protein domains etc.), and then combine these to give complete gene, RNA transcript or protein structures. Normally the combination step is done in the same program as the feature detection, often using dynamic programming methods. To enable these processes to be decoupled, a format called GFF ('Gene-Finding Format' or 'General Feature Format') was proposed as a protocol for the transfer of feature information. It is now possible to take features from an outside source and add them in to an existing program, or in the extreme to write a dynamic programming system which only took external features.

GFF allows people to develop features and have them tested without having to maintain a complete feature-finding system. Equally, it would help those developing and applying integrated gene-finding programs to test new feature detectors developed by others, or even by themselves.

We want the GFF format to be easy to parse and process by a variety of programs in different languages. e.g. it would be useful if Unix tools like grep, sort and simple perl and awk scripts could easily extract information out of the file. For these reasons, for the primary format, we propose a record-based structure, where each feature is described on a single line, and line order is not relevant.

We do not intend GFF format to be used for complete data management of the analysis and annotation of genomic sequence. Systems such as Acedb, Genotator etc. that have much richer data representation semantics have been designed for that purpose. The disadvantages in using their formats for data exchange (or other richer formats such as ASN.1) are (1) they require more complexity in parsing/processing, (2) there is little hope on achieving consensus on how to capture all information. GFF is intentionally aiming for a low common denominator.

With the changes taking place to version 2 of the format, we also allow for feature sets to be defined over RNA and Protein sequences, as well as genomic DNA. This is used for example by the EMBOSS project to provide standard format output for all features as an option. In this case the <strand> and <frame> fields should be set to '.'. To assist this transition in specification, a new #Type Meta-Comment has been added.

Here are some example records:

SEQ1  EMBL  atg  103  105  .  +  0
SEQ1  EMBL  exon  103  172  .  +  0
SEQ1  EMBL  splice5  172  173  .  +  .
SEQ1  netgene  splice5  172  173  0.94  +  .
SEQ1  genie  sp5-20  163  182  2.3  +  .
SEQ1  genie  sp5-10  168  177  2.1  +  .
SEQ2  grail  ATG  17  19  2.1  -  0


Fields are: <seqname> <source> <feature> <start> <end> <score> <strand> <frame> [attributes] [comments]

The name of the sequence. Having an explicit sequence name allows a feature file to be prepared for a data set of multiple sequences. Normally the seqname will be the identifier of the sequence in an accompanying fasta format file. An alternative is that <seqname> is the identifier for a sequence in a public database, such as an EMBL/Genbank/DDBJ accession number. Which is the case, and which file or database to use, should be explained in accompanying information.
The source of this feature. This field will normally be used to indicate the program making the prediction, or if it comes from public database annotation, or is experimentally verified, etc.
The feature type name. We hope to suggest a standard set of features, to facilitate import/export, comparison etc.. Of course, people are free to define new ones as needed. For example, Genie splice detectors account for a region of DNA, and multiple detectors may be available for the same site, as shown above.
We would like to enforce a standard nomenclature for common GFF features. This does not forbid the use of other features, rather, just that if the feature is obviously described in the standard list, that the standard label should be used. For this standard table we propose to fall back on the international public standards for genomic database feature annotation, specifically, the DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank feature table documentation).
<start>, <end>
Integers. <start> must be less than or equal to <end>. Sequence numbering starts at 1, so these numbers should be between 1 and the length of the relevant sequence, inclusive. (Version 2 change: version 2 condones values of <start> and <end> that extend outside the reference sequence. This is often more natural when dumping from acedb, rather than clipping. It means that some software using the files may need to clip for itself.)
A floating point value. When there is no score (i.e. for a sensor that just records the possible presence of a signal, as for the EMBL features above) you should use '.'. (Version 2 change: in version 1 of GFF you had to write 0 in such circumstances.)
One of '+', '-' or '.'. '.' should be used when strand is not relevant, e.g. for dinucleotide repeats. Version 2 change: This field is left empty '.' for RNA and protein features.
One of '0', '1', '2' or '.'. '0' indicates that the specified region is in frame, i.e. that its first base corresponds to the first base of a codon. '1' indicates that there is one extra base, i.e. that the second base of the region corresponds to the first base of a codon, and '2' means that the third base of the region is the first base of a codon. If the strand is '-', then the first base of the region is value of <end>, because the corresponding coding region will run from <end> to <start> on the reverse strand. As with <strand>, if the frame is not relevant then set <frame> to '.'. It has been pointed out that "phase" might be a better descriptor than "frame" for this field.
Version 2 change: This field is left empty '.' for RNA and protein features.
From version 2 onwards, the attribute field must have an tag value structure following the syntax used within objects in a .ace file, flattened onto one line by semicolon separators. Tags must be standard identifiers ([A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_]*). Free text values must be quoted with double quotes. Note: all non-printing characters in such free text value strings (e.g. newlines, tabs, control characters, etc) must be explicitly represented by their C (UNIX) style backslash-escaped representation (e.g. newlines as '\n', tabs as '\t'). As in ACEDB, multiple values can follow a specific tag. The aim is to establish consistent use of particular tags, corresponding to an underlying implied ACEDB model if you want to think that way (but acedb is not required). Examples of these would be:
seq1     BLASTX  similarity   101  235 87.1 + 0  Target "HBA_HUMAN" 11 55 ; E_value 0.0003
dJ102G20 GD_mRNA coding_exon 7105 7201   .  - 2 Sequence "dJ102G20.C1.1"
The semantics of tags in attribute field tag-values pairs has intentionally not been formalized. Two useful guidelines are to use DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank feature 'qualifiers' (see DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank feature table documentation), or the features that ACEDB generates when it dumps GFF.
Version 1 note In version 1 the attribute field was called the group field, with the following specification:
An optional string-valued field that can be used as a name to group together a set of records. Typical uses might be to group the introns and exons in one gene prediction (or experimentally verified gene structure), or to group multiple regions of match to another sequence, such as an EST or a protein.

All of the above described fields should be separated by TAB characters ('\t'). All values of the mandatory fields should not include whitespace (i.e. the strings for <seqname>, <source> and <feature> fields).

Version 1 note In version 1 each string had to be under 256 characters long, and the whole line should under 32k long. This was to make things easier for guaranteed conforming parsers, but seemed unnecessary given modern languages.


Comments are allowed, starting with "#" as in Perl, awk etc. Everything following # until the end of the line is ignored. Effectively this can be used in two ways. Either it must be at the beginning of the line (after any whitespace), to make the whole line a comment, or the comment could come after all the required fields on the line.

## comment lines for meta information

There is a set of standardised (i.e. parsable) ## line types that can be used optionally at the top of a gff file. The philosophy is a little like the special set of %% lines at the top of postscript files, used for example to give the BoundingBox for EPS files.

Current proposed ## lines are:

 ##gff-version 2 
GFF version - in case it is a real success and we want to change it. The current default version is 2, so if this line is not present version 2 is assumed.
 ##source-version <source> <version text> 
So that people can record what version of a program or package was used to make the data in this file. I suggest the version is text without whitespace. That allows things like 1.3, 4a etc. There should be at most one source-version line per source.
 ##date <date> 
The date the file was made, or perhaps that the prediction programs were run. We suggest to use astronomical format: 1997-11-08 for 8th November 1997, first because these sort properly, and second to avoid any US/European bias.
 ##Type <type> [<seqname>] 
The type of host sequence described by the features. Standard types are 'DNA', 'Protein' and 'RNA'. The optional <seqname> allows multiple ##Type definitions describing multiple GFF sets in one file, each of which have a distinct type. If the name is not provided, then all the features in the file are of the given type. Thus, with this meta-comment, a single file could contain DNA, RNA and Protein features, for example, representing a single genomic locus or 'gene', alongside type-specific features of its transcribed mRNA and translated protein sequences. If no ##Type meta-comment is provided for a given GFF file, then the type is assumed to be DNA.
 ##DNA <seqname>
To give a DNA sequence. Several people have pointed out that it may be convenient to include the sequence in the file. It should not become mandatory to do so, and in our experience this has been very little used. Often the seqname will be a well-known identifier, and the sequence can easily be retrieved from a database, or an accompanying file.
 ##RNA <seqname>
Similar to DNA. Creates an implicit ##Type RNA <seqname> directive.
 ##Protein <seqname>

Similar to DNA. Creates an implicit ##Type Protein <seqname> directive.
 ##sequence-region <seqname> <start> <end> 
To indicate that this file only contains entries for the specified subregion of a sequence.

Please feel free to propose new ## lines.

The ## line proposal came out of some discussions including Anders Krogh, David Haussler, people at the Newton Institute on 1997-10-29 and some email from Suzanna Lewis. Of course, naive programs can ignore all of these...

File Naming

We propose that the format is called "GFF", with conventional file name ending ".gff".


We have intentionally avoided overspecifying the semantics of the format. For example, we have not restricted the items expressible in GFF to a specified set of feature types (splice sites, exons etc.) with defined semantics. Therefore, in order for the information in a gff file to be useful to somebody else, the person producing the features must describe the meaning of the features.

In the example given above the feature "splice5" indicates that there is a candidate 5' splice site between positions 172 and 173. The "sp5-20" feature is a prediction based on a window of 20 bp for the same splice site. To use either of these, you must know the position within the feature of the predicted splice site. This only needs to be given once, possibly in comments at the head of the file, or in a separate document.

Another example is the scoring scheme; we ourselves would like the score to be a log-odds likelihood score in bits to a defined null model, but that is not required, because different methods take different approaches.

Avoiding a prespecified feature set also leaves open the possibility for GFF to be used for new feature types, such as CpG islands, hypersensitive sites, promoter/enhancer elements, etc.

Ways to use GFF

Here are a few suggestions on how the GFF format might be used.

  1. Simple sharing of sensors. In this case, researcher A has a sensor, such as a 3' splice site sensor, and researcher B wants to test that sensor. They agree on a set of sequences, researcher A runs the sensor on these sequences and sends the resulting GFF file to researher B, who then evaluates the result.
  2. Representing experimental results. GFF feature records can also be created for experimentally confirmed exons and other features. In these cases there will presumably be no score. Such "confirmed" GFF files will be useful for evaluating predictions, using the same software as you would to compare predictions.
  3. Integrated gene parsing. Several GFF files from different researchers can be combined to provide the features used by an integrated genefinder. As mentioned above, this has the advantage that different combinations of sensors and dynamic programming methods for assembling sensor scores into consistent gene parses can be easily explored.
  4. Reporting final predictions. GFF format can also be used to communicate finished gene predictions. One simply reports final predicted exons and other predicted gene features, either with their original scores. or with some sort of posterior scores, rather than, or in addition to, reporting all candidate gene features with their scores. To show that a set of the components belong to a single prediction, a "attribute" field can be added to all the accepted sites. This is useful for comparing the outputs of several integrated genefinders among themselves, and to "confirmed" GFF files. A particular advantage of having the same format for both raw sensor feature score files and final gene parse files is that one can easily explore the possibility of combining the final gene parses from several different genefinders, using another round of dynamic programming, into a single integrated predicted parse.
  5. Visualisation. GFF will also provide a simple standard format for standardising input to visualisation programs, showing predicted and experimentally determined features, gene structures etc.

Complex Examples

Similarities to Other Sequences

A major source of information about a sequence comes from similarities to other sequences. For example, BLAST hits to protein sequences help identify potential coding regions. We can represent these as a set of "similarity features":

seq1 BLASTX similarity 101 235 87.1 + 0    Target "HBA_HUMAN" 11 54 ; E_value 0.0003

The proposed tag-value structure for gapped alignments is

  Align <seq_start> <target_start> [<length>] ;

to define each ungapped block in the alignment, with multiple Align tags to give a full gapped alignment. The <length> field is optional because in its absence a block is presumed to extend until it reaches the next specified block, or the end of the complete similarity. This corresponds to the standard case with alignments that they don't have simultaneous gaps on both strands. For example, for the above HBA_HUMAN similarity, the Align information could be

  Align 101 11 ; Align 179 36 ;

which leaves the DNA triplet from 176 to 178 aligned to a gap in the protein sequence.

Cumulative Score Arrays

One issue that comes up with a record-based format such as the GFF format is how to cope with large numbers of overlapping segments. For example, in a long sequence, if one tries to include a separate record giving the score of every candidate exon, where a candidate exon is defined as a segment of the sequence that begins and ends at candidate splice sites and consists of an open reading frame in between, then one can have an infeasibly large number of records. The problem is that there can be a huge number of highly overlapping exon candidates.

Let us assume that the score of an exon can be decomposed into three parts: the score of the 5' splice site, the score of the 3' splice site, and the sum of the scores of all the codons in between. In such a case it can be much more efficient to use the GFF format to report separate scores for the splice site sensors and for the individual codons in all three (or six, including reverse strand) frames, and let the program that interprets this file assemble the exon scores. The exon scores can be calculated efficiently by first creating three arrays, each of which contains in its [i]th position a value A[i] that is the partial sum of the codon scores in a particular frame for the entire sequence from position 1 up to position i. Then for any positions i < j, the sum of the scores of all codons from i to j can be obtained as A[j] - A[i]. Using these arrays, along with the candidate splice site scores, a very large number of scores for overlapping exons are implicitly defined in a data structure that takes only linear space with respect to the number of positions in the sequence, and such that the score for each exon can be retrieved in constant time.

When the GFF format is used to transmit scores that can be summed for efficient retrieval as in the case of the codon scores above, we ask that the provider of the scores indicate that these scores are summable in this manner, and provide a recipe for calculating the scores that are to be derived from these summable scores, such as the exon scores described above. We place no limit on the complexity of this recipe, nor do we provide a standard protocol for such assembly, other than providing examples. It behooves the sensor score provider to keep the recipe simple enough that others can easily implement it.

Edit History

000929 rd
make version 2 default and propose Align tag-value syntax
0003022 rbsk
small clarification to #comment rules
991711 rbsk
(overdue changes as per September '99 gff-list commentaries)
  • GFF acronym renamed to mean 'General Feature Format' rather than just 'Gene-Finding Features', in order to conceptually accommodate RNA and Protein as well as DNA features
  • added ##Type metacomment field,
  • changed name of [group] field to [attribute] field
990816 rbsk
standard list of features and group tags (first attempt at clarification)
990317 rbsk
End of line comments following Version 2 [group] field tag-value structures must be tab '\t' or hash '#' delimited.
990226 rbsk
incorporated amendments to the version 2 specification as follows:
  • Non-printing characters (e.g. newlines, tabs) in Version 2 double quoted "free text values" must be explicitly represented by their C (UNIX) style backslash escaped character (i.e. '\t' for tabs, '\n' for newlines, etc.)
  • Removed field (256) and line (32K) character size limitations for Version 2.
  • Removed arbitrary whitespace field delimiter permission from specification. TAB ('\t') field delimiters now enforced again, as in Version 1.
981216 rd
introduced version 2 changes.
980909 ihh
fixed some small things and put this page on the Sanger GFF site.
971113 rd
added section on mailing list.
971113 rd
added extra "source" field as discussed at Newton Institute meeting 971029. There are two main reasons. First, to help prevent name space clashes -- each program would have their own source designation. Second, to help reuse feature names, so one could have "exon" for exon predictions from each prediction program.
971108 rd
added ## line proposals - moved them into main text 971113.
971028 rd
I added the section about name space.
I considered switching from start-end notation to start-length notation, on the suggestion of Anders Krogh. This seems nicer in many cases, but is a debatable point. I then switched back!
We also now allow extra text after <group> without a comment character, because this immediately proved useful.
I changed the comment initiator to '#' from '//' because a single symbol is easier for simple parsers.


GFF Protocol Specification initially proposed by:

Richard Durbin and David Haussler

with amendments proposed by:

Lincoln Stein, Suzanna Lewis, Anders Krogh and others.

* quick link -