Dataset Information

An assessment of substitution scores for protein profile-profile comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Motivation

Pairwise protein sequence alignments are generally evaluated using scores defined as the sum of substitution scores for aligning amino acids to one another, and gap scores for aligning runs of amino acids in one sequence to null characters inserted into the other. Protein profiles may be abstracted from multiple alignments of protein sequences, and substitution and gap scores have been generalized to the alignment of such profiles either to single sequences or to other profiles. Although there is widespread agreement on the general form substitution scores should take for profile-sequence alignment, little consensus has been reached on how best to construct profile-profile substitution scores, and a large number of these scoring systems have been proposed. Here, we assess a variety of such substitution scores. For this evaluation, given a gold standard set of multiple alignments, we calculate the probability that a profile column yields a higher substitution score when aligned to a related than to an unrelated column. We also generalize this measure to sets of two or three adjacent columns. This simple approach has the advantages that it does not depend primarily upon the gold-standard alignment columns with the weakest empirical support, and that it does not need to fit gap and offset costs for use with each substitution score studied.

Results

A simple symmetrization of mean profile-sequence scores usually performed the best. These were followed closely by several specific scoring systems constructed using a variety of rationales.

Contact

altschul@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Supplementary information

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

SUBMITTER: Ye X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3232366 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An assessment of substitution scores for protein profile-profile comparison.

Ye Xugang X Wang Guoli G Altschul Stephen F SF

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 20111013 24

<h4>Motivation</h4>Pairwise protein sequence alignments are generally evaluated using scores defined as the sum of substitution scores for aligning amino acids to one another, and gap scores for aligning runs of amino acids in one sequence to null characters inserted into the other. Protein profiles may be abstracted from multiple alignments of protein sequences, and substitution and gap scores have been generalized to the alignment of such profiles either to single sequences or to other profile ...[more]

PMID: 21998158

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundComparative genomics aims to detect signals of evolutionary conservation as an indicator of functional constraint. Surprisingly, results of the ENCODE project revealed that about half of the experimentally verified functional elements found in non-coding DNA were classified as unconstrained by computational predictions. Following this observation, it has been hypothesized that this may be partly explained by biased estimates on neutral evolutionary rates used by existing sequence conservation metrics. All methods we are aware of rely on a comparison with the neutral rate and conservation is estimated by measuring the deviation of a particular genomic region from this rate. Consequently, it is a reasonable assumption that inaccurate neutral rate estimates may lead to biased conservation and constraint estimates.ResultsWe propose a conservation signal that is produced by local Maximum Likelihood estimation of evolutionary parameters using an optimized sliding window and present a Kullback-Leibler projection that allows multiple different estimated parameters to be transformed into a conservation measure. This conservation measure does not rely on assumptions about neutral evolutionary substitution rates and little a priori assumptions on the properties of the conserved regions are imposed. We show the accuracy of our approach (KuLCons) on synthetic data and compare it to the scores generated by state-of-the-art methods (phastCons, GERP, SCONE) in an ENCODE region. We find that KuLCons is most often in agreement with the conservation/constraint signatures detected by GERP and SCONE while qualitatively very different patterns from phastCons are observed. Opposed to standard methods KuLCons can be extended to more complex evolutionary models, e.g. taking insertion and deletion events into account and corresponding results show that scores obtained under this model can diverge significantly from scores using the simpler model.ConclusionOur results suggest that discriminating among the different degrees of conservation is possible without making assumptions about neutral rates. We find, however, that it cannot be expected to discover considerably different constraint regions than GERP and SCONE. Consequently, we conclude that the reported discrepancies between experimentally verified functional and computationally identified constraint elements are likely not to be explained by biased neutral rate estimates.

Project description:Abstract Aims This study aims to evaluate the ability of a deep-learning-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) retinal biomarker, Reti-CVD, to identify individuals with intermediate- and high-risk for CVD. Methods and results We defined the intermediate- and high-risk groups according to Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE), QRISK3, and modified Framingham Risk Score (FRS). Reti-CVD’s prediction was compared to the number of individuals identified as intermediate- and high-risk according to standard CVD risk assessment tools, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess the results. In the UK Biobank, among 48 260 participants, 20 643 (42.8%) and 7192 (14.9%) were classified into the intermediate- and high-risk groups according to PCE, and QRISK3, respectively. In the Singapore Epidemiology of Eye Diseases study, among 6810 participants, 3799 (55.8%) were classified as intermediate- and high-risk group according to modified FRS. Reti-CVD identified PCE-based intermediate- and high-risk groups with a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 82.7%, 87.6%, 86.5%, and 84.0%, respectively. Reti-CVD identified QRISK3-based intermediate- and high-risk groups with a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 82.6%, 85.5%, 49.9%, and 96.6%, respectively. Reti-CVD identified intermediate- and high-risk groups according to the modified FRS with a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 82.1%, 80.6%, 76.4%, and 85.5%, respectively. Conclusion The retinal photograph biomarker (Reti-CVD) was able to identify individuals with intermediate and high-risk for CVD, in accordance with existing risk assessment tools. Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract The Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE), QRISK3, and modified Framingham Risk Score (FRS) are formal risk assessment tools to guide primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the USA, UK, and Singapore, respectively. However, these risk assessment tools require a lipid profiling via blood tests. Currently, a non-invasive cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment tool is not available, particularly in stratifying those at intermediate- and high-risk. Reti-CVD is a retinal imaging biomarker developed from a deep-learning algorithm that can predict future CVD risk. In this study, we aim to evaluate the performance of Reti-CVD as a non-invasive triage tool to identify individuals with intermediate- and high-risk for CVD who can potentially benefit from early intervention. In this cross-sectional validation study, we confirmed Reti-CVD’s ability to identify individuals with intermediate- and high-risk for CVD based on their 10-year CVD risk using three different standard risk assessment tools (PCE, QRISK3, and modified FRS) with more than 80% sensitivity and specificity. Our findings demonstrate Reti-CVD’s ability to function as a non-invasive screening tool that can help triage patients according to CVD risk.

Project description:BackgroundBecause of the absence of biological parameters for fatigue, appropriate instruments for assessing the degree of fatigue are important in the diagnosis and management of people complaining of fatigue-like symptoms. This study statistically analyzed the fatigue scores from two typical questionnaire-based instruments: the Korean version of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-K) and the modified Chalder Fatigue Scale (mKCFQ).MethodsSeventy participants (males n = 40, females n = 30, median age 48 years old, range of 25-67) were grouped into three groups ('mild' = 20, 'moderate' = 42, and 'severe' = 8) according to self-reported fatigue levels using a 7-point Likert scale. The similarities and differences between two instrument-derived scores were analyzed using correlations (r) and multidimensional scaling (MDS).ResultsThe total scores of the two assessments were significantly correlated (r = 75%, p < 0.001), as were the subscores ('Total Physical fatigue': r = 76%, p < 0.001, 'Total Mental fatigue': r = 56%, p < 0.001). Relative overestimation of the MFI-K (45.8 ± 11.3) compared to the mKCFQ (36.1 ± 16.2) was observed, which was especially prominent in the 'mild' group. The scores of the three groups were more easily distinguished by the mKCFQ than by the MFI-K. In terms of the five dimension scores, we found a higher correlation of the two assessments for 'general fatigue' (r = 79%, p < 0.001) and 'physical fatigue' (r = 66%, p < 0.001) than for the reductions in 'motivation' (r = 41%, p < 0.01) and 'activity' (r = 26%, p > 0.05).ConclusionsOur results may indicate the usefulness of the two instruments, especially for the physical symptoms of fatigue ('general' and 'physical' fatigue). Furthermore, the MFI-K may be useful for conditions of moderate-to-severe fatigue, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, but the mKCFQ may be useful for all spectra of fatigue, including in subhealthy people.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the predictive value of the quick COVID-19 Severity Index (qCSI) and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) for 90-day mortality amongst COVID-19 patients.MethodsMulticenter retrospective cohort study conducted in adult patients transferred by ambulance to an emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19 infection subsequently confirmed by a SARS-CoV-2 test (polymerase chain reaction). We collected epidemiological data, clinical covariates (respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, level of consciousness and use of supplemental oxygen) and hospital variables. The primary outcome was cumulative all-cause mortality during a 90-day follow-up, with mortality assessment monitoring time points at 1, 2, 7, 14, 30 and 90 days from ED attendance. Comparison of performances for 90-day mortality between both scores was carried out by univariate analysis.ResultsFrom March to November 2020, we included 2,961 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (median age 79 years, IQR 66-88), with 49.2% females. The qCSI score provided an AUC ranging from 0.769 (1-day mortality) to 0.749 (90-day mortality), whereas AUCs for NEWS ranging from 0.825 for 1-day mortality to 0.777 for 90-day mortality. At all-time points studied, differences between both scores were statistically significant (p < .001).ConclusionPatients with SARS-CoV-2 can rapidly develop bilateral pneumonias with multiorgan disease; in these cases, in which an evacuation by the EMS is required, reliable scores for an early identification of patients with risk of clinical deterioration are critical. The NEWS score provides not only better prognostic results than those offered by qCSI at all the analyzed time points, but it is also better suited for COVID-19 patients.KEY MESSAGESThis work aims to determine whether NEWS is the best score for mortality risk assessment in patients with COVID-19.AUCs for NEWS ranged from 0.825 for 1-day mortality to 0.777 for 90-day mortality and were significantly higher than those for qCSI in these same outcomes.NEWS provides a better prognostic capacity than the qCSI score and allows for long-term (90 days) mortality risk assessment of COVID-19 patients.

Dataset Information

An assessment of substitution scores for protein profile-profile comparison.

Motivation

Results

Contact

Supplementary information

Publications

An assessment of substitution scores for protein profile-profile comparison.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets