Dataset Information

SENSE: Siamese neural network for sequence embedding and alignment-free comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Motivation

Sequence analysis is arguably a foundation of modern biology. Classic approaches to sequence analysis are based on sequence alignment, which is limited when dealing with large-scale sequence data. A dozen of alignment-free approaches have been developed to provide computationally efficient alternatives to alignment-based approaches. However, existing methods define sequence similarity based on various heuristics and can only provide rough approximations to alignment distances.

Results

In this article, we developed a new approach, referred to as SENSE (SiamEse Neural network for Sequence Embedding), for efficient and accurate alignment-free sequence comparison. The basic idea is to use a deep neural network to learn an explicit embedding function based on a small training dataset to project sequences into an embedding space so that the mean square error between alignment distances and pairwise distances defined in the embedding space is minimized. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to use deep learning for alignment-free sequence analysis. A large-scale experiment was performed that demonstrated that our method significantly outperformed the state-of-the-art alignment-free methods in terms of both efficiency and accuracy.

Availability and implementation

Open-source software for the proposed method is developed and freely available at https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/∼yijunsun/lab/SENSE.html.

Supplementary information

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

SUBMITTER: Zheng W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7963080 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.