ArticleBMC bioinformatics2005
Multiple sequence alignment accuracy and evolutionary distance estimation.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complete Chloroplast Genome of Four Thai NativeGenes · 2023Article
- ProPIP: a tool for progressive multiple sequence alignment with Poisson Indel Process.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- HALPER facilitates the identification of regulatory element orthologs across species.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Evolutionary coupling analysis identifies the impact of disease-associated variants at less-conserved sites.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Advanced DNA fingerprint genotyping based on a model developed from real chip electrophoresis data.Journal of advanced research · 2019Article
- Diversity of Marine-Derived Fungal Cultures Exposed by DNA Barcodes: The Algorithm Matters.PloS one · 2015Article
- Classification of genomic signals using dynamic time warping.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Antifungal indole and pyrrolidine-2,4-Dione derivative peptidomimetic lead design based on in silico study of bioactive Peptide families.Avicenna journal of medical biotechnology · 2013Article
- Towards realistic benchmarks for multiple alignments of non-coding sequences.BMC bioinformatics · 2010Article
- How accurately is ncRNA aligned within whole-genome multiple alignments?BMC bioinformatics · 2007Article
- Lower bounds on multiple sequence alignment using exact 3-way alignment.BMC bioinformatics · 2007Article
- The accuracy of several multiple sequence alignment programs for proteins.BMC bioinformatics · 2006Article
- Detecting the limits of regulatory element conservation and divergence estimation using pairwise and multiple alignments.BMC bioinformatics · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSequence alignment is a common tool in bioinformatics and comparative genomics. It is generally assumed that multiple sequence alignment yields better results than pair wise sequence alignment, but this assumption has rarely been tested, and never with the control provided by simulation analysis. This study used sequence simulation to examine the gain in accuracy of adding a third sequence to a pair wise alignment, particularly concentrating on how the phylogenetic position of the additional sequence relative to the first pair changes the accuracy of the initial pair's alignment as well as their estimated evolutionary distance.
resultsThe maximal gain in alignment accuracy was found not when the third sequence is directly intermediate between the initial two sequences, but rather when it perfectly subdivides the branch leading from the root of the tree to one of the original sequences (making it half as close to one sequence as the other). Evolutionary distance estimation in the multiple alignment framework, however, is largely unrelated to alignment accuracy and rather is dependent on the position of the third sequence; the closer the branch leading to the third sequence is to the root of the tree, the larger the estimated distance between the first two sequences.
conclusionThe bias in distance estimation appears to be a direct result of the standard greedy progressive algorithm used by many multiple alignment methods. These results have implications for choosing new taxa and genomes to sequence when resources are limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.