Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (Print PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (14)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, P.
Right arrow Articles by States, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, P.
Right arrow Articles by States, D. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Bioinformatics, Vol 14, 40-47, Copyright © 1998 by Oxford University Press


ARTICLES

Comparative accuracy of methods for protein sequence similarity search

P Agarwal and DJ States
Institute for Biomedical Computing, Washington University, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.

MOTIVATION: Searching a protein sequence database for homologs is a powerful tool for discovering the structure and function of a sequence. Two new methods for searching sequence databases have recently been described: Probabilistic Smith-Waterman (PSW), which is based on Hidden Markov models for a single sequence using a standard scoring matrix, and a new version of BLAST (WU-BLAST2), which uses Sum statistics for gapped alignments. RESULTS: This paper compares and contrasts the effectiveness of these methods with three older methods (Smith- Waterman: SSEARCH, FASTA and BLASTP). The analysis indicates that the new methods are useful, and often offer improved accuracy. These tools are compared using a curated (by Bill Pearson) version of the annotated portion of PIR 39. Three different statistical criteria are utilized: equivalence number, minimum errors and the receiver operating characteristic. For complete-length protein query sequences from large families, PSW's accuracy is superior to that of the other methods, but its accuracy is poor when used with partial-length query sequences. False negatives are twice as common as false positives irrespective of the search methods if a family-specific threshold score that minimizes the total number of errors (i.e. the most favorable threshold score possible) is used. Thus, sensitivity, not selectivity, is the major problem. Among the analyzed methods using default parameters, the best accuracy was obtained from SSEARCH and PSW for complete-length proteins, and the two BLAST programs, plus SSEARCH, for partial-length proteins.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CSH ProtocolsHome page
D. W. Mount
Using Gaps and Gap Penalties to Optimize Pairwise Sequence Alignments
CSH Protocols, June 1, 2008; 2008(7): pdb.top40 - pdb.top40.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Genome ResHome page
M. G. Reese, G. Hartzell, N. L. Harris, U. Ohler, J. F. Abril, and S. E. Lewis
Genome Annotation Assessment in Drosophila melanogaster
Genome Res., April 1, 2000; 10(4): 483 - 501.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Protein Eng Des SelHome page
V. Geetha, V. Di Francesco, J. Garnier, and P. J. Munson
Comparing protein sequence-based and predicted secondary structure-based methods for identification of remote homologs
Protein Eng. Des. Sel., July 1, 1999; 12(7): 527 - 534.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.