Selecting the right similarity-scoring matrix

Current Protocols in Bioinformatics

Volumn , Issue SUPL.43, 2013, Pages

  Pearson, William R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

BLOSUM matrices; PAM matrices; Sequence alignment; Similarity scoring matrices

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; DNA;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; DATA ANALYSIS; DNA SEQUENCE; GENOME; MATHEMATICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION; ORGANISMS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DOMAIN; SCORING SYSTEM; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; SIMILARITY SCORING MATRIX; MOLECULAR GENETICS; POSITION WEIGHT MATRIX;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; DNA; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; POSITION-SPECIFIC SCORING MATRICES; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY, AMINO ACID;

EID: 84896376410     PISSN: 19343396     EISSN: 1934340X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0305s43     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Altschul, S.F. 1991. Amino acid substitution matrices from an information theoretic perspective. J. Mol. Biol. 219:555-565.
2. Altschul, S.F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E.W., and Lipman, D.J. 1990. A basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215:403-410.
3. Altschul, S.F., Madden, T.L., Schaffer, A.A., Zhang, J., Zhang, Z., Miller, W., and Lipman, D.J. 1997. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25:3389-3402.
4. Gonnet, G.H., Cohen, M.A., and Benner, S.A. 1992. Exhaustive matching of the entire protein sequence database. Science 256:1443-1445.
5. Gonzalez, M.W. and Pearson, W.R. 2010. Homologous over-extension: A challenge for iterative similarity searches. Nucleic Acids Res. 38:2177-2189.
6. Henikoff, S. and Henikoff, J.G. 1992. Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89:10915-10919.
7. Jones, D.T., Taylor, W.R., and Thornton, J.M. 1992. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Comp. Appl. Biosci. 8:275-282.
8. Mueller, T., Spang, R., and Vingron, M. 2002. Estimating amino acid substitution models: A comparison of Dayhoff's estimator, the resolvent approach and a maximum likelihood method. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:8-13.
9. Pearson, W.R. 1991. Searching protein sequence libraries: Comparison of the sensitivity and selectivity of the Smith-Waterman and FASTA algorithms. Genomics 11:635-650.
10. Pearson, W.R. and Lipman, D.J. 1988. Improved tools for biological sequence comparison. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 85:2444-2448.
11. Reese, J.T. and Pearson, W.R. 2002. Empirical determination of effective gap penalties for sequence comparison. Bioinformatics 18:1500-1507.
12. Schwartz, R.M. and Dayhoff, M. 1978. Matrices for detecting distant relationships. In Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, Volume 5, Supplement 3 (M. Dayhoff, ed.), pp. 353-358. National Biomedical Research Foundation, Silver Spring, Maryland.
13. Smith, T.F. and Waterman, M.S. 1981. Identification of common molecular subsequences. J. Mol. Biol. 147:195-197.
14. States, D.J., Gish, W., and Altschul, S.F. 1991. Improved sensitivity of nucleic acid database searches using application-specific scoring matrices. Methods Enzymol. 3:66-70.