ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2026
A deep learning-based score to evaluate multiple sequence alignments.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) inference is a central task in molecular evolution and comparative genomics, and the reliability of downstream analyses, including phylogenetic inference, depends critically on alignment quality. Despite this importance, most widely used MSA methods optimize the sum-of-pairs (SoP) score, and relatively little attention has been paid to whether this objective function accurately reflects alignment accuracy. Here, we evaluate the performance of the SoP score using simulated and empirical benchmark alignments. For each dataset, we compare alternative MSAs derived from the same unaligned sequences and quantify the relationship between their SoP scores and their distances from a reference alignment. We show that the alignment with the optimal SoP score often does not correspond to the most accurate alignment. To address this limitation, we develop deep learning-based scoring functions that integrate a collection of MSA features. We first introduce Model 1, a regression model that predicts the distance of a given MSA from the reference alignment. Across simulated and empirical datasets, this learned score correlates more strongly with true alignment accuracy than the SoP score. However, Model 1 is less effective at identifying the best alignment among alternatives. We therefore develop Model 2, which takes as input a set of alternative MSAs generated from the same sequences and predicts their relative ranking. Model 2 more accurately identifies the top-ranking MSA than the SoP score, Model 1, and several widely used alignment programs. Using simulations, we show that selecting MSAs based on our approach leads to more accurate phylogenetic reconstructions.
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.