ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008
Comparison study on k-word statistical measures for protein: from sequence to 'sequence space'.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Polymerase Chain Reaction Success: Integrating theCombinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2026Article
- Advances in breast cancer diagnosis: a comprehensive review of imaging, biosensors, and emerging wearable technologies.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Comparative Study on Feature Selection in Protein Structure and Function Prediction.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Using Recursive Feature Selection with Random Forest to Improve Protein Structural Class Prediction for Low-Similarity Sequences.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
- Graph Theory-Based Sequence Descriptors as Remote Homology Predictors.Biomolecules · 2019Article
- GRAFENE: Graphlet-based alignment-free network approach integrates 3D structural and sequence (residue order) data to improve protein structural comparison.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Alignment-free Transcriptomic and Metatranscriptomic Comparison Using Sequencing Signatures with Variable Length Markov Chains.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Clustering of reads with alignment-free measures and quality values.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2015Article
- New developments of alignment-free sequence comparison: measures, statistics and next-generation sequencing.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2014Review
- Assembly-free genome comparison based on next-generation sequencing reads and variable length patterns.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Article
- Comparison study on statistical features of predicted secondary structures for protein structural class prediction: From content to position.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Article
- A hybrid distance measure for clustering expressed sequence tags originating from the same gene family.PloS one · 2012Article
- New powerful statistics for alignment-free sequence comparison under a pattern transfer model.Journal of theoretical biology · 2011Article
- Using Gaussian model to improve biological sequence comparison.Journal of computational chemistry · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany proposed statistical measures can efficiently compare protein sequence to further infer protein structure, function and evolutionary information. They share the same idea of using k-word frequencies of protein sequences. Given a protein sequence, the information on its related protein sequences hasn't been used for protein sequence comparison until now. This paper proposed a scheme to construct protein 'sequence space' which was associated with protein sequences related to the given protein, and the performances of statistical measures were compared when they explored the information on protein 'sequence space' or not. This paper also presented two statistical measures for protein: gre.k (generalized relative entropy) and gsm.k (gapped similarity measure).
resultsWe tested statistical measures based on protein 'sequence space' or not with three data sets. This not only offers the systematic and quantitative experimental assessment of these statistical measures, but also naturally complements the available comparison of statistical measures based on protein sequence. Moreover, we compared our statistical measures with alignment-based measures and the existing statistical measures. The experiments were grouped into two sets. The first one, performed via ROC (Receiver Operating Curve) analysis, aims at assessing the intrinsic ability of the statistical measures to discriminate and classify protein sequences. The second set of the experiments aims at assessing how well our measure does in phylogenetic analysis. Based on the experiments, several conclusions can be drawn and, from them, novel valuable guidelines for the use of protein 'sequence space' and statistical measures were obtained.
conclusionAlignment-based measures have a clear advantage when the data is high redundant. The more efficient statistical measure is the novel gsm.k introduced by this article, the cos.k followed. When the data becomes less redundant, gre.k proposed by us achieves a better performance, but all the other measures perform poorly on classification tasks. Almost all the statistical measures achieve improvement by exploring the information on 'sequence space' as word's length increases, especially for less redundant data. The reasonable results of phylogenetic analysis confirm that Gdis.k based on 'sequence space' is a reliable measure for phylogenetic analysis. In summary, our quantitative analysis verifies that exploring the information on 'sequence space' is a promising way to improve the abilities of statistical measures for protein comparison.
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.