No so HoT - heads or tails is not able to reliably compare multiple sequence alignments

Cladistics

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 438-443

  Wise, Michael J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; ALGORITHM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENETIC ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENETICS;

EID: 77954513340     PISSN: 07483007     EISSN: 10960031     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00292.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Edgar RC. Muscle: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinformatics 2004, 5:113.
2. Elias I. Settling the intractability of multiple alignment. J. Comput. Biol. 2006, 13:1323-1339.
3. Feng DF, Doolittle RF. Progressive sequence alignment as a prerequisite to correct phylogenetic trees. J. Mol. Evol. 1987, 25:351-360.
4. Golubchik T, Wise MJ, Easteal S, Jermiin LS. Mind the gaps: evidence of bias in estimates of multiple sequence alignments. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24:2433-2442.
5. Hall BG. How well does the hot score refl{ligature}ect sequence alignment accuracy? Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008a, 25:1576-1580.
6. Hall BG. Simulating DNA coding sequence evolution with evolveagene 3. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008b, 25:688-695.
7. Hertz GZ, Stormo GD. Identifying DNA and protein patterns with statistically signifi{ligature}cant alignments of multiple sequences. Bioinformatics 1999, 15:563-577.
8. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 1992, 8:275-282.
9. Landan GH, Graur D. Heads or tails: a simple reliability check for multiple sequence alignments. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24:1380-1383.
10. Lassmann T, Sonnhammer ELL. Automatic assessment of alignment quality. Nucl. Acids Res. 2005, 33:7120-7128.
11. Morgenstern B, Goel S, Sczyrba A, Dress A. Altavist: comparing alternative multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics 2003, 19:425-426.
12. Needleman SB, Wunsch CD. A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 1970, 48:443-453.
13. Nuin PAS, Wang Z, Tillier ER. The accuracy of several multiple sequence alignment programs for proteins. BMC Bioinformatics 2006, 7:47.
14. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2006, Vienna, Austria
15. Rice P, Longden I, Bleasby A. Emboss: the European molecular biology open software suite. Trends Genet. 2000, 16:276-277.
16. Smith TF, Waterman MS. Identifi{ligature}cation of common molecular subsequences. J. Mol. Biol. 1981, 147:195-197.
17. States DJ, Boguski MS. Similarity and homology. Sequence Analysis Primer 1992, 89-157. Gribskov M, Devereux J. In, Eds, W. H. Freeman, New York, pp
18. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. Clustal W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specifi{ligature}c gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucl. Acids Res. 1994, 22:4673-4680.
19. Thompson JD, Plewniak F, Poch O. Balibase: a benchmark alignment database for the evaluation of multiple alignment programs. Bioinformatics 1999a, 15:87-88.
20. Thompson JD, Plewniak F, Poch O. A comprehensive comparison of multiple sequence alignment programs. Nucl. Acids Res. 1999b, 27:2682-2690.
21. Wise MJ. 0j.py: a software tool for low complexity proteins and protein domains. Bioinformatics 2001, 17:S288-S295.