4.5 Article

Benchmarking of alignment-free sequence comparison methods

Journal

GENOME BIOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13059-019-1755-7

Keywords

Alignment-free; Sequence comparison; Benchmark; Whole-genome phylogeny; Horizontal gene transfer; Web service

Funding

  1. Polish National Science Centre [2017/25/B/NZ2/00187, 2018/31/D/NZ2/00108]
  2. Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology [PS17-015]
  3. US National Science Foundation (NSF) [DMS-1518001]
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01GM120624]
  5. VW Foundation [VWZN3157]
  6. Australian Research Council [DP150101875, DP190102474]
  7. FCT [UID/CEC/50021/2019, UID/EMS/50022/2019, PTDC/EMSSIS/0642/2014, PTDC/CCI-CIF/29877/2017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundAlignment-free (AF) sequence comparison is attracting persistent interest driven by data-intensive applications. Hence, many AF procedures have been proposed in recent years, but a lack of a clearly defined benchmarking consensus hampers their performance assessment.ResultsHere, we present a community resource (http://afproject.org) to establish standards for comparing alignment-free approaches across different areas of sequence-based research. We characterize 74 AF methods available in 24 software tools for five research applications, namely, protein sequence classification, gene tree inference, regulatory element detection, genome-based phylogenetic inference, and reconstruction of species trees under horizontal gene transfer and recombination events.ConclusionThe interactive web service allows researchers to explore the performance of alignment-free tools relevant to their data types and analytical goals. It also allows method developers to assess their own algorithms and compare them with current state-of-the-art tools, accelerating the development of new, more accurate AF solutions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available