4.7 Article

Combining phylogenetic data with co-regulated genes to identify regulatory motifs

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 19, 期 18, 页码 2369-2380

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg329

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHGRI NIH HHS [2T32HG00045, HG00249] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Discovery of regulatory motifs in unaligned DNA sequences remains a fundamental problem in computational biology. Two categories of algorithms have been developed to identify common motifs from a set of DNA sequences. The first can be called a 'multiple genes, single species' approach. It proposes that a degenerate motif is embedded in some or all of the otherwise unrelated input sequences and tries to describe a consensus motif and identify its occurrences. It is often used for co-regulated genes identified through experimental approaches. The second approach can be called 'single gene, multiple species'. It requires orthologous input sequences and tries to identify unusually well conserved regions by phylogenetic footprinting. Both approaches perform well, but each has some limitations. It is tempting to combine the knowledge of co-regulation among different genes and conservation among orthologous genes to improve our ability to identify motifs. Results: Based on the Consensus algorithm previously established by our group, we introduce a new algorithm called PhyloCon (Phylogenetic Consensus) that takes into account both conservation among orthologous genes and co-regulation of genes within a species. This algorithm first aligns conserved regions of orthologous sequences into multiple sequence alignments, or profiles, then compares profiles representing non-orthologous sequences. Motifs emerge as common regions in these profiles. Here we present a novel statistic to compare profiles of DNA sequences and a greedy approach to search for common subprofiles. We demonstrate that PhyloCon performs well on both synthetic and biological data.

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