MBE Advance Access originally published online on March 25, 2007
Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(6):1380-1383; doi:10.1093/molbev/msm060
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Research Articles |
Heads or Tails: A Simple Reliability Check for Multiple Sequence Alignments
Department of Biology & Biochemistry, University of Houston
E-mail: giddy.landan{at}gmail.com.
Accepted for publication March 15, 2007.
The question of multiple sequence alignment quality has received much attention from developers of alignment methods. Less forthcoming, however, are practical measures for addressing alignment quality issues in real life settings. Here, we present a simple methodology to help identify and quantify the uncertainties in multiple sequence alignments and their effects on subsequent analyses. The proposed methodology is based upon the a priori expectation that sequence alignment results should be independent of the orientation of the input sequences. Thus, for totally unambiguous cases, reversing residue order prior to alignment should yield an exact reversed alignment of that obtained by using the unreversed sequences. Such "ideal" alignments, however, are the exception in real life settings, and the two alignments, which we term the heads and tails alignments, are usually different to a greater or lesser degree. The degree of agreement or discrepancy between these two alignments may be used to assess the reliability of the sequence alignment. Furthermore, any alignment dependent sequence analysis protocol can be carried out separately for each of the two alignments, and the two sets of results may be compared with each other, providing us with valuable information regarding the robustness of the whole analytical process. The heads-or-tails (HoT) methodology can be easily implemented for any choice of alignment method and for any subsequent analytical protocol. We demonstrate the utility of HoT for phylogenetic reconstruction for the case of 130 sequences belonging to the chemoreceptor superfamily in Drosophila melanogaster, and by analysis of the BaliBASE alignment database. Surprisingly, Neighbor-Joining methods of phylogenetic reconstruction turned out to be less affected by alignment errors than maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods.
Key Words: multiple sequence alignment • phylogenetic reconstruction • chemoreceptors
William Martin, Associate Editor
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Roettger, W. Martin, and T. Dagan A Machine-Learning Approach Reveals That Alignment Properties Alone Can Accurately Predict Inference of Lateral Gene Transfer from Discordant Phylogenies Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2009; 26(9): 1931 - 1939. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Dagan and W. Martin Getting a better picture of microbial evolution en route to a network of genomes Phil Trans R Soc B, August 12, 2009; 364(1527): 2187 - 2196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Schultheiss, B. Van Bocxlaer, T. Wilke, and C. Albrecht Old fossils-young species: evolutionary history of an endemic gastropod assemblage in Lake Malawi Proc R Soc B, August 7, 2009; 276(1668): 2837 - 2846. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Dagan and W. Martin Seeing Green and Red in Diatom Genomes Science, June 26, 2009; 324(5935): 1651 - 1652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Schneider, A. Souvorov, N. Sabath, G. Landan, G. H. Gonnet, and D. Graur Estimates of Positive Darwinian Selection Are Inflated by Errors in Sequencing, Annotation, and Alignment Gen Biol Evol, June 22, 2009; 2009(0): 114 - 118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Misof and K. Misof A Monte Carlo Approach Successfully Identifies Randomness in Multiple Sequence Alignments: A More Objective Means of Data Exclusion Syst Biol, May 20, 2009; (2009) syp006v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. J. Weadick and B. S.W. Chang Molecular Evolution of the {beta}{gamma} Lens Crystallin Superfamily: Evidence for a Retained Ancestral Function in {gamma}N Crystallins? Mol. Biol. Evol., May 1, 2009; 26(5): 1127 - 1142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Morrison Why Would Phylogeneticists Ignore Computerized Sequence Alignment? Syst Biol, March 25, 2009; (2009) syp009v1. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Ahola, T. Aittokallio, M. Vihinen, and E. Uusipaikka Model-based prediction of sequence alignment quality Bioinformatics, October 1, 2008; 24(19): 2165 - 2171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. A. Studer, S. Penel, L. Duret, and M. Robinson-Rechavi Pervasive positive selection on duplicated and nonduplicated vertebrate protein coding genes Genome Res., September 1, 2008; 18(9): 1393 - 1402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. G. Hall How Well Does the HoT Score Reflect Sequence Alignment Accuracy? Mol. Biol. Evol., August 1, 2008; 25(8): 1576 - 1580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. G. Hall Simulating DNA Coding Sequence Evolution with EvolveAGene 3 Mol. Biol. Evol., April 1, 2008; 25(4): 688 - 695. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Deusch, G. Landan, M. Roettger, N. Gruenheit, K. V. Kowallik, J. F. Allen, W. Martin, and T. Dagan Genes of Cyanobacterial Origin in Plant Nuclear Genomes Point to a Heterocyst-Forming Plastid Ancestor Mol. Biol. Evol., April 1, 2008; 25(4): 748 - 761. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Golubchik, M. J. Wise, S. Easteal, and L. S. Jermiin Mind the Gaps: Evidence of Bias in Estimates of Multiple Sequence Alignments Mol. Biol. Evol., November 1, 2007; 24(11): 2433 - 2442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|