The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comprehensive comparison of multiple sequence alignment programs
Open accessAbstract
In recent years improvements to existing programs and the introduction of new iterative algorithms have changed the state-of-the-art in protein sequence alignment. This paper presents the first systematic study of the most commonly used alignment programs using BAliBASE benchmark alignments as test cases. Even below the 'twilight zone' at 10-20% residue identity, the best programs were capable of correctly aligning on average 47% of the residues. We show that iterative algorithms often offer improved alignment accuracy though at the expense of computation time. A notable exception was the effect of introducing a single divergent sequence into a set of closely related sequences, causing the iteration to diverge away from the best alignment. Global alignment programs generally performed better than local methods, except in the presence of large N/C-terminal extensions and internal insertions. In these cases, a local algorithm was more successful in identifying the most conserved motifs. This study enables us to propose appropriate alignment strategies, depending on the nature of a particular set of sequences. The employment of more than one program based on different alignment techniques should significantly improve the quality of automatic protein sequence alignment methods. The results also indicate guidelines for improvement of alignment algorithms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Basic local alignment search tool
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W., & Lipman, D. J. (1990) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1990.9999 · Cited by 98,669
Needleman, S. B., & Wunsch, C. D. (1970) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-2836(70)90057-4 · Cited by 11,288
The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance
Friedman, M. (1937) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522 · Cited by 7,005
Cited by
MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput
Edgar, R. C. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh340 · Cited by 44,662
MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform
Katoh, K. (2002) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkf436 · Cited by 17,027
progressiveMauve: Multiple Genome Alignment with Gene Gain, Loss and Rearrangement
Darling, A. E., Mau, B., & Perna, N. T. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011147 · Cited by 3,848
Clustal Omega for making accurate alignments of many protein sequences
Sievers, F., & Higgins, D. G. (2018) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.3290 · Cited by 2,137
Thompson, J. D., Linard, B., Lecompte, O., & Poch, O. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018093 · Cited by 242
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Thompson, J. D., Plewniak, F., & Poch, O.
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-07-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 2682-2690
- ISSN
- 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-4962
- OpenAlex
- W2141411672
- Cited by
- 741
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.