4.7 Article

Optimizing the DNA fragment assembly using metaheuristic-based overlap layout consensus approach

期刊

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
卷 92, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106256

关键词

Metaheuristic; DNA fragment assembly; Hybrid genetic algorithm; Overlap layout consensus; Optimization

资金

  1. GIK Institute (Pakistan) graduate research fund under GA-F scheme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nucleotide sequencing finds the exact order of nucleotides present in a DNA molecule. The correct DNA sequence is required to obtain the desired information about the complete genetic makeup of an organism. The DNA fragment assembly correctly combines the DNA information present in the form of fragments as a sequence. Reconstruction of the original DNA sequence from large fragments is a challenging task due to the limitations of the available technologies that reads the DNA sequence. Objective of the DNA fragment assembly is to find the correct order of the fragments which is further used in the generation of a consensus sequence that represents the original DNA sequence. Power Aware Local Search (PALS) algorithm proposed for the DNA fragment assembly is an efficient method that orders the fragments in a correct sequence by minimizing the number of contigs. This work presents a hybrid approach on the basis of Overlap Layout Consensus for the DNA fragment assembly, where Restarting and Recentering Genetic Algorithm (RRGA) with integrated PALS is utilized as an evolutionary operator. Quality of the current proposal is quantified using overlap scores and the number of contigs. This work is evaluated using 25 benchmark datasets with three types of experiments. The results are compared with four state-of-the-art methods for the same task, namely, Recentering-Restarting Genetic Algorithm variation for DNA fragment assembly, PALS, Genetic Algorithm, and Hybrid Genetic Algorithm. Results show better average performance of the proposed solution. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据