ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008
A new protein linear motif benchmark for multiple sequence alignment software.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A benchmark study of sequence alignment methods for protein clustering.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Exact p-values for pairwise comparison of Friedman rank sums, with application to comparing classifiers.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- KMAD: knowledge-based multiple sequence alignment for intrinsically disordered proteins.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- Assessing the efficiency of multiple sequence alignment programs.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2014Article
- SLiMPrints: conservation-based discovery of functional motif fingerprints in intrinsically disordered protein regions.Nucleic acids research · 2012Article
- The identification of short linear motif-mediated interfaces within the human interactome.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2012Article
- Uncovering new substrates for Aurora A kinase.EMBO reports · 2010Article
- A strategy for interaction site prediction between phospho-binding modules and their partners identified from proteomic data.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2010Article
- Issues in bioinformatics benchmarking: the case study of multiple sequence alignment.Nucleic acids research · 2010Review
- ELM: the status of the 2010 eukaryotic linear motif resource.Nucleic acids research · 2010Article
- Evidence for the concerted evolution between short linear protein motifs and their flanking regions.PloS one · 2009Article
- A tree-based conservation scoring method for short linear motifs in multiple alignments of protein sequences.BMC bioinformatics · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLinear motifs (LMs) are abundant short regulatory sites used for modulating the functions of many eukaryotic proteins. They play important roles in post-translational modification, cell compartment targeting, docking sites for regulatory complex assembly and protein processing and cleavage. Methods for LM detection are now being developed that are strongly dependent on scores for motif conservation in homologous proteins. However, most LMs are found in natively disordered polypeptide segments that evolve rapidly, unhindered by structural constraints on the sequence. These regions of modular proteins are difficult to align using classical multiple sequence alignment programs that are specifically optimised to align the globular domains. As a consequence, poor motif alignment quality is hindering efforts to detect new LMs.
resultsWe have developed a new benchmark, as part of the BAliBASE suite, designed to assess the ability of standard multiple alignment methods to detect and align LMs. The reference alignments are organised into different test sets representing real alignment problems and contain examples of experimentally verified functional motifs, extracted from the Eukaryotic Linear Motif (ELM) database. The benchmark has been used to evaluate and compare a number of multiple alignment programs. With distantly related proteins, the worst alignment program correctly aligns 48% of LMs compared to 73% for the best program. However, the performance of all the programs is adversely affected by the introduction of other sequences containing false positive motifs. The ranking of the alignment programs based on LM alignment quality is similar to that observed when considering full-length protein alignments, however little correlation was observed between LM and overall alignment quality for individual alignment test cases.
conclusionWe have shown that none of the programs currently available is capable of reliably aligning LMs in distantly related sequences and we have highlighted a number of specific problems. The results of the tests suggest possible ways to improve program accuracy for difficult, divergent sequences.
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.