Dataset Information

A comparison of four pair-wise sequence alignment methods.

ABSTRACT: Protein sequence alignment has become an essential task in modern molecular biology research. A number of alignment techniques have been documented in literature and their corresponding tools are made available as freeware and commercial software. The choice and use of these tools for sequence alignment through the complete interpretation of alignment results is often considered non-trivial by end-users with limited skill in Bioinformatics algorithm development. Here, we discuss the comparison of sequence alignment techniques based on dynamic programming (N-W, S-W) and heuristics (LFASTA, BL2SEQ) for four sets of sequence data towards an educational purpose. The analysis suggests that heuristics based methods are faster than dynamic programming methods in alignment speed.

SUBMITTER: Essoussi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2255065 | biostudies-literature | 2007

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of four pair-wise sequence alignment methods.

Essoussi Nadia N Fayech Sondes S

Bioinformation 20071228 4

Protein sequence alignment has become an essential task in modern molecular biology research. A number of alignment techniques have been documented in literature and their corresponding tools are made available as freeware and commercial software. The choice and use of these tools for sequence alignment through the complete interpretation of alignment results is often considered non-trivial by end-users with limited skill in Bioinformatics algorithm development. Here, we discuss the comparison o ...[more]

PMID: 21670797

Similar Datasets

Project description:MotivationNetwork comparison is a computationally intractable problem with important applications in systems biology and other domains. A key challenge is to properly quantify similarity between wiring patterns of two networks in an alignment-free fashion. Also, alignment-based methods exist that aim to identify an actual node mapping between networks and as such serve a different purpose. Various alignment-free methods that use different global network properties (e.g. degree distribution) have been proposed. Methods based on small local subgraphs called graphlets perform the best in the alignment-free network comparison task, due to high level of topological detail that graphlets can capture. Among different graphlet-based methods, Graphlet Correlation Distance (GCD) was shown to be the most accurate for comparing networks. Recently, a new graphlet-based method called NetDis was proposed, which was claimed to be superior. We argue against this, as the performance of NetDis was not properly evaluated to position it correctly among the other alignment-free methods.ResultsWe evaluate the performance of available alignment-free network comparison methods, including GCD and NetDis. We do this by measuring accuracy of each method (in a systematic precision-recall framework) in terms of how well the method can group (cluster) topologically similar networks. By testing this on both synthetic and real-world networks from different domains, we show that GCD remains the most accurate, noise-tolerant and computationally efficient alignment-free method. That is, we show that NetDis does not outperform the other methods, as originally claimed, while it is also computationally more expensive. Furthermore, since NetDis is dependent on the choice of a network null model (unlike the other graphlet-based methods), we show that its performance is highly sensitive to the choice of this parameter. Finally, we find that its performance is not independent on network sizes and densities, as originally claimed.Contactnatasha@imperial.ac.ukSupplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Project description:Rapid methods for alignment-free sequence comparison make large-scale comparisons between sequences increasingly feasible. Here we study the power of the statistic D2, which counts the number of matching k-tuples between two sequences, as well as D2*, which uses centralized counts, and D2S, which is a self-standardized version, both from a theoretical viewpoint and numerically, providing an easy to use program. The power is assessed under two alternative hidden Markov models; the first one assumes that the two sequences share a common motif, whereas the second model is a pattern transfer model; the null model is that the two sequences are composed of independent and identically distributed letters and they are independent. Under the first alternative model, the means of the tuple counts in the individual sequences change, whereas under the second alternative model, the marginal means are the same as under the null model. Using the limit distributions of the count statistics under the null and the alternative models, we find that generally, asymptotically D2S has the largest power, followed by D2*, whereas the power of D2 can even be zero in some cases. In contrast, even for sequences of length 140,000 bp, in simulations D2* generally has the largest power. Under the first alternative model of a shared motif, the power of D2*approaches 100% when sufficiently many motifs are shared, and we recommend the use of D2* for such practical applications. Under the second alternative model of pattern transfer,the power for all three count statistics does not increase with sequence length when the sequence is sufficiently long, and hence none of the three statistics under consideration canbe recommended in such a situation. We illustrate the approach on 323 transcription factor binding motifs with length at most 10 from JASPAR CORE (October 12, 2009 version),verifying that D2* is generally more powerful than D2. The program to calculate the power of D2, D2* and D2S can be downloaded from http://meta.cmb.usc.edu/d2. Supplementary Material is available at www.liebertonline.com/cmb.

Dataset Information

A comparison of four pair-wise sequence alignment methods.

Publications

A comparison of four pair-wise sequence alignment methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets