...
首页> 外文期刊>Bioinformatics >A comparison of scoring functions for protein sequence profile alignment
【24h】

A comparison of scoring functions for protein sequence profile alignment

机译:蛋白质序列图谱比对的评分功能比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Motivation:In recent years, several methods have been proposed for aligning two protein sequence profiles, with reported improvements in alignment accuracy and homolog discrimination versus sequence-sequence methods (e.g. BLAST) and profile-sequence methods (e.g. PSI-BLAST). Profile-profile alignment is also the iterated step in progressive multiple sequence alignment algorithms such as CLUSTALW. However, little is known about the relative performance of different profile-profile scoring functions. In this work, we evaluate the alignment accuracy of 23 different profile-profile scoring functions by comparing alignments of 488 pairs of sequences with identity less than or equal to30% against structural alignments. We optimize parameters for all scoring functions on the same training set and use profiles of alignments from both PSI-BLAST and SAM-T99. Structural alignments are constructed from a consensus between the FSSP database and CE structural aligner. We compare the results with sequence-sequence and sequence-profile methods, including BLAST and PSI-BLAST.
机译:动机:近年来,已经提出了几种用于比对两个蛋白质序列图谱的方法,与序列-序列方法(例如BLAST)和图谱-序列方法(例如PSI-BLAST)相比,已报道了比对准确性和同源物歧视的改进。轮廓-轮廓比对也是渐进式多序列比对算法(例如CLUSTALW)中的迭代步骤。但是,对于不同的配置文件评分功能的相对性能知之甚少。在这项工作中,我们通过比较488对具有小于或等于30%的同一性的序列对与结构比对的比对,评估23种不同的谱-谱评分功能的比对准确性。我们针对同一训练集上的所有评分功能优化参数,并使用来自PSI-BLAST和SAM-T99的比对曲线。结构对齐是根据FSSP数据库和CE结构对齐器之间的共识构建的。我们将结果与序列-序列和序列分析方法(包括BLAST和PSI-BLAST)进行比较。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号