Dataset Information

Mitogenome sequence accuracy using different elucidation methods.

ABSTRACT: Mitogenome sequences are highly desired because they are used in several biological disciplines. Their elucidation has been facilitated through the development of massive parallel sequencing, accelerating their deposition in public databases. However, sequencing, assembly and annotation methods might induce variability in their quality, raising concerns about the accuracy of the sequences that have been deposited in public databases. In this work we show that different sequencing methods (number of species pooled in a library, insert size and platform) and assembly and annotation methods generated variable completeness and similarity of the resulting mitogenome sequences, using three species of predaceous ladybird beetles as models. The identity of the sequences varied considerably depending on the method used and ranged from 38.19 to 90.1% for Cycloneda sanguinea, 72.85 to 91.06% for Harmonia axyridis and 41.15 to 93.60% for Hippodamia convergens. Dissimilarities were frequently found in the non-coding A+T rich region, but were also common in coding regions, and were not associated with low coverage. Mitogenome completeness and sequence identity were affected by the sequencing and assembly/annotation methods, and high within-species variation was also found for other mitogenome depositions in GenBank. This indicates a need for methods to confirm sequence accuracy, and guidelines for verifying mitogenomes should be discussed and developed by the scientific community.

SUBMITTER: Velozo Timbo R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5491103 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mitogenome sequence accuracy using different elucidation methods.

Velozo Timbó Renata R Coiti Togawa Roberto R M C Costa Marcos M A Andow David D Paula Débora P DP

PloS one 20170629 6

Mitogenome sequences are highly desired because they are used in several biological disciplines. Their elucidation has been facilitated through the development of massive parallel sequencing, accelerating their deposition in public databases. However, sequencing, assembly and annotation methods might induce variability in their quality, raising concerns about the accuracy of the sequences that have been deposited in public databases. In this work we show that different sequencing methods (number ...[more]

PMID: 28662089

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurate sequence alignments are essential for homology searches and for building three-dimensional structural models of proteins. Since structure is better conserved than sequence, structure alignments have been used to guide sequence alignments and are commonly used as the gold standard for sequence alignment evaluation. Nonetheless, as far as we know, there is no report of a systematic evaluation of pairwise structure alignment programs in terms of the sequence alignment accuracy.ResultsIn this study, we evaluate CE, DaliLite, FAST, LOCK2, MATRAS, SHEBA and VAST in terms of the accuracy of the sequence alignments they produce, using sequence alignments from NCBI's human-curated Conserved Domain Database (CDD) as the standard of truth. We find that 4 to 9% of the residues on average are either not aligned or aligned with more than 8 residues of shift error and that an additional 6 to 14% of residues on average are misaligned by 1-8 residues, depending on the program and the data set used. The fraction of correctly aligned residues generally decreases as the sequence similarity decreases or as the RMSD between the C alpha positions of the two structures increases. It varies significantly across CDD superfamilies whether shift error is allowed or not. Also, alignments with different shift errors occur between proteins within the same CDD superfamily, leading to inconsistent alignments between superfamily members. In general, residue pairs that are more than 3.0 A apart in the reference alignment are heavily (>or= 25% on average) misaligned in the test alignments. In addition, each method shows a different pattern of relative weaknesses for different SCOP classes. CE gives relatively poor results for beta-sheet-containing structures (all-beta, alpha/beta, and alpha+beta classes), DaliLite for "others" class where all but the major four classes are combined, and LOCK2 and VAST for all-beta and "others" classes.ConclusionWhen the sequence similarity is low, structure-based methods produce better sequence alignments than by using sequence similarities alone. However, current structure-based methods still mis-align 11-19% of the conserved core residues when compared to the human-curated CDD alignments. The alignment quality of each program depends on the protein structural type and similarity, with DaliLite showing the most agreement with CDD on average.

Project description:BackgroundWhile the pairwise alignments produced by sequence similarity searches are a powerful tool for identifying homologous proteins - proteins that share a common ancestor and a similar structure; pairwise sequence alignments often fail to represent accurately the structural alignments inferred from three-dimensional coordinates. Since sequence alignment algorithms produce optimal alignments, the best structural alignments must reflect suboptimal sequence alignment scores. Thus, we have examined a range of suboptimal sequence alignments and a range of scoring parameters to understand better which sequence alignments are likely to be more structurally accurate.ResultsWe compared near-optimal protein sequence alignments produced by the Zuker algorithm and a set of probabilistic alignments produced by the probA program with structural alignments produced by four different structure alignment algorithms. There is significant overlap between the solution spaces of structural alignments and both the near-optimal sequence alignments produced by commonly used scoring parameters for sequences that share significant sequence similarity (E-values < 10-5) and the ensemble of probA alignments. We constructed a logistic regression model incorporating three input variables derived from sets of near-optimal alignments: robustness, edge frequency, and maximum bits-per-position. A ROC analysis shows that this model more accurately classifies amino acid pairs (edges in the alignment path graph) according to the likelihood of appearance in structural alignments than the robustness score alone. We investigated various trimming protocols for removing incorrect edges from the optimal sequence alignment; the most effective protocol is to remove matches from the semi-global optimal alignment that are outside the boundaries of the local alignment, although trimming according to the model-generated probabilities achieves a similar level of improvement. The model can also be used to generate novel alignments by using the probabilities in lieu of a scoring matrix. These alignments are typically better than the optimal sequence alignment, and include novel correct structural edges. We find that the probA alignments sample a larger variety of alignments than the Zuker set, which more frequently results in alignments that are closer to the structural alignments, but that using the probA alignments as input to the regression model does not increase performance.ConclusionsThe pool of suboptimal pairwise protein sequence alignments substantially overlaps structure-based alignments for pairs with statistically significant similarity, and a regression model based on information contained in this alignment pool improves the accuracy of pairwise alignments with respect to structure-based alignments.

Project description:In this study, we investigate the extent to which techniques for homology modeling that were developed for water-soluble proteins are appropriate for membrane proteins as well. To this end we present an assessment of current strategies for homology modeling of membrane proteins and introduce a benchmark data set of homologous membrane protein structures, called HOMEP. First, we use HOMEP to reveal the relationship between sequence identity and structural similarity in membrane proteins. This analysis indicates that homology modeling is at least as applicable to membrane proteins as it is to water-soluble proteins and that acceptable models (with C alpha-RMSD values to the native of 2 A or less in the transmembrane regions) may be obtained for template sequence identities of 30% or higher if an accurate alignment of the sequences is used. Second, we show that secondary-structure prediction algorithms that were developed for water-soluble proteins perform approximately as well for membrane proteins. Third, we provide a comparison of a set of commonly used sequence alignment algorithms as applied to membrane proteins. We find that high-accuracy alignments of membrane protein sequences can be obtained using state-of-the-art profile-to-profile methods that were developed for water-soluble proteins. Improvements are observed when weights derived from the secondary structure of the query and the template are used in the scoring of the alignment, a result which relies on the accuracy of the secondary-structure prediction of the query sequence. The most accurate alignments were obtained using template profiles constructed with the aid of structural alignments. In contrast, a simple sequence-to-sequence alignment algorithm, using a membrane protein-specific substitution matrix, shows no improvement in alignment accuracy. We suggest that profile-to-profile alignment methods should be adopted to maximize the accuracy of homology models of membrane proteins.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the accuracy of different methods for image registration in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) for cervical cancer. METHODS:The last treatment planning CT images (CT1) and the first treatment planning CT images (CT2) were acquired from 15 patients with cervical cancer and registered with different match image qualities (retained/removed catheter source in images) and different match regions [target only (S Group)/ interested organ structure (M Group)/body (L Group)] in Velocity3.2 software. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC) between the clinical target volumes (CTV) of the CT1 and CT2 images (CTVCT1 and CTVCT2, respectively) and between the organs-at-risk (OAR) of the two imaging datasets (OARCT1 and OARCT2, respectively) were used to evaluate the image registration accuracy. RESULTS:The auto-segmentation volume of the catheter source using Velocity software based on the CT threshold was the closest to the actual volume within the CT value range of 1700-1800 HU. In the retained group, the DSC for the OARs of was better than or equal to that of the removed group, and the DSC value of the rectum was significantly improved (P < 0.05). For comparison of different match regions, the high-risk target volume (HRCTV) and the low-risk target volume (IRCTV) had the best precision for registration of the target area, which was significantly greater than that of M group and L group (P < 0.05). The M group had better registration accuracy of the target area and the best accuracy for the OARs. The DSC values of the bladder and rectum were significantly better than those of the other two groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:The CT value range of 1700-1800 HU is optimal for automatic image segmentation using Velocity software. Automatic segmentation and shielding the volume of the catheter source can improve the image quality. We recommend the use of interested organ structures regions for image registration in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancer.

Dataset Information

Mitogenome sequence accuracy using different elucidation methods.

Publications

Mitogenome sequence accuracy using different elucidation methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets