Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25651949›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

Evaluation and improvements of clustering algorithms for detecting remote homologous protein families.

Juliana S Bernardes, Fabio R J Vieira, Lygia M M Costa, Gerson Zaverucha

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. RAFTSBMC bioinformatics · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Juliana S BernardesPrograma de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computação, COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. juliana.silva_bernardes@upmc.fr.
Fabio R J VieiraPrograma de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computação, COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. fjimenez@cos.ufrj.br.
Lygia M M CostaEngenharia de Computação e Informação, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. lmmc@poli.ufrj.br.
Gerson ZaveruchaPrograma de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computação, COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. gerson@cos.ufrj.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn important problem in computational biology is the automatic detection of protein families (groups of homologous sequences). Clustering sequences into families is at the heart of most comparative studies dealing with protein evolution, structure, and function. Many methods have been developed for this task, and they perform reasonably well (over 0.88 of F-measure) when grouping proteins with high sequence identity. However, for highly diverged proteins the performance of these methods can be much lower, mainly because a common evolutionary origin is not deduced directly from sequence similarity. To the best of our knowledge, a systematic evaluation of clustering methods over distant homologous proteins is still lacking.

resultsWe performed a comparative assessment of four clustering algorithms: Markov Clustering (MCL), Transitive Clustering (TransClust), Spectral Clustering of Protein Sequences (SCPS), and High-Fidelity clustering of protein sequences (HiFix), considering several datasets with different levels of sequence similarity. Two types of similarity measures, required by the clustering sequence methods, were used to evaluate the performance of the algorithms: the standard measure obtained from sequence-sequence comparisons, and a novel measure based on profile-profile comparisons, used here for the first time.

conclusionsThe results reveal low clustering performance for the highly divergent datasets when the standard measure was used. However, the novel measure based on profile-profile comparisons substantially improved the performance of the four methods, especially when very low sequence identity datasets were evaluated. We also performed a parameter optimization step to determine the best configuration for each clustering method. We found that TransClust clearly outperformed the other methods for most datasets. This work also provides guidelines for the practical application of clustering sequence methods aimed at detecting accurately groups of related protein sequences.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCluster AnalysisEvolution, MolecularMultigene FamilyHumansProteinsSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, ProteinProteins

Identifiers

PMID25651949
PMCPMC4339679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.