MOTIVATION: In recent years, several methods have been proposed for aligning two protein sequence profiles, with reported improvements in alignment accuracy and homolog discrimination versus sequence-sequence methods (e.g. BLAST) and profile-sequence methods (e.g. PSI-BLAST). Profile-profile alignment is also the iterated step in progressive multiple sequence alignment algorithms such as CLUSTALW. However, little is known about the relative performance of different profile-profile scoring functions. In this work, we evaluate the alignment accuracy of 23 different profile-profile scoring functions by comparing alignments of 488 pairs of sequences with identity < or =30% against structural alignments. We optimize parameters for all scoring functions on the same training set and use profiles of alignments from both PSI-BLAST and SAM-T99. Structural alignments are constructed from a consensus between the FSSP database and CE structural aligner. We compare the results with sequence-sequence and sequence-profile methods, including BLAST and PSI-BLAST. RESULTS: We find that profile-profile alignment gives an average improvement over our test set of typically 2-3% over profile-sequence alignment and approximately 40% over sequence-sequence alignment. No statistically significant difference is seen in the relative performance of most of the scoring functions tested. Significantly better results are obtained with profiles constructed from SAM-T99 alignments than from PSI-BLAST alignments. AVAILABILITY: Source code, reference alignments and more detailed results are freely available at http://phylogenomics.berkeley.edu/profilealignment/
MOTIVATION: In recent years, several methods have been proposed for aligning two protein sequence profiles, with reported improvements in alignment accuracy and homolog discrimination versus sequence-sequence methods (e.g. BLAST) and profile-sequence methods (e.g. PSI-BLAST). Profile-profile alignment is also the iterated step in progressive multiple sequence alignment algorithms such as CLUSTALW. However, little is known about the relative performance of different profile-profile scoring functions. In this work, we evaluate the alignment accuracy of 23 different profile-profile scoring functions by comparing alignments of 488 pairs of sequences with identity < or =30% against structural alignments. We optimize parameters for all scoring functions on the same training set and use profiles of alignments from both PSI-BLAST and SAM-T99. Structural alignments are constructed from a consensus between the FSSP database and CE structural aligner. We compare the results with sequence-sequence and sequence-profile methods, including BLAST and PSI-BLAST. RESULTS: We find that profile-profile alignment gives an average improvement over our test set of typically 2-3% over profile-sequence alignment and approximately 40% over sequence-sequence alignment. No statistically significant difference is seen in the relative performance of most of the scoring functions tested. Significantly better results are obtained with profiles constructed from SAM-T99 alignments than from PSI-BLAST alignments. AVAILABILITY: Source code, reference alignments and more detailed results are freely available at http://phylogenomics.berkeley.edu/profilealignment/
Authors: Ben Webb; Andrej Sali; Narayanan Eswar; Marc A Marti-Renom; M S Madhusudhan; David Eramian; Min-Yi Shen; Ursula Pieper Journal: Curr Protoc Bioinformatics Date: 2006-10