ArticlePloS one2010
Identifying and seeing beyond multiple sequence alignment errors using intra-molecular protein covariation.
Article in PloS one, 2010. 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.
- The Structural Determinants of Intra-Protein Compensatory Substitutions.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Alignment-Integrated Reconstruction of Ancestral Sequences Improves Accuracy.Genome biology and evolution · 2020Article
- On the Natural Structure of Amino Acid Patterns in Families of Protein Sequences.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2018Article
- Identifying functionally informative evolutionary sequence profiles.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- Efficient representation of uncertainty in multiple sequence alignments using directed acyclic graphs.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- A Web Resource for Standardized Benchmark Datasets, Metrics, and Rosetta Protocols for Macromolecular Modeling and Design.PloS one · 2015Article
- Allosteric activation of Bordetella pertussis adenylyl cyclase by calmodulin: molecular dynamics and mutagenesis studies.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014Article
- Control of catalytic efficiency by a coevolving network of catalytic and noncatalytic residues.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014Article
- Multidimensional mutual information methods for the analysis of covariation in multiple sequence alignments.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Structural phylogeny by profile extraction and multiple superimposition using electrostatic congruence as a discriminator.Intrinsically disordered proteins · 2013Article
- Computational protein design quantifies structural constraints on amino acid covariation.PLoS computational biology · 2013Article
- Flexible backbone sampling methods to model and design protein alternative conformations.Methods in enzymology · 2013Article
- Protein sequence alignment analysis by local covariation: coevolution statistics detect benchmark alignment errors.PloS one · 2012Article
- A coevolutionary residue network at the site of a functionally important conformational change in a phosphohexomutase enzyme family.PloS one · 2012Article
- High sensitivity to aligner and high rate of false positives in the estimates of positive selection in the 12 Drosophila genomes.Genome research · 2011Article
- Use of mutual information arrays to predict coevolving sites in the full length HIV gp120 protein for subtypes B and C.Virologica Sinica · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently no way to verify the quality of a multiple sequence alignment that is independent of the assumptions used to build it. Sequence alignments are typically evaluated by a number of established criteria: sequence conservation, the number of aligned residues, the frequency of gaps, and the probable correct gap placement. Covariation analysis is used to find putatively important residue pairs in a sequence alignment. Different alignments of the same protein family give different results demonstrating that covariation depends on the quality of the sequence alignment. We thus hypothesized that current criteria are insufficient to build alignments for use with covariation analyses. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe show that current criteria are insufficient to build alignments for use with covariation analyses as systematic sequence alignment errors are present even in hand-curated structure-based alignment datasets like those from the Conserved Domain Database. We show that current non-parametric covariation statistics are sensitive to sequence misalignments and that this sensitivity can be used to identify systematic alignment errors. We demonstrate that removing alignment errors due to 1) improper structure alignment, 2) the presence of paralogous sequences, and 3) partial or otherwise erroneous sequences, improves contact prediction by covariation analysis. Finally we describe two non-parametric covariation statistics that are less sensitive to sequence alignment errors than those described previously in the literature. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Protein alignments with errors lead to false positive and false negative conclusions (incorrect assignment of covariation and conservation, respectively). Covariation analysis can provide a verification step, independent of traditional criteria, to identify systematic misalignments in protein alignments. Two non-parametric statistics are shown to be somewhat insensitive to misalignment errors, providing increased confidence in contact prediction when analyzing alignments with erroneous regions because of an emphasis on they emphasize pairwise covariation over group covariation.
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.