↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation and improvements of clustering algorithms for detecting remote homologous protein families

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation and improvements of clustering algorithms for detecting remote homologous protein families
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-014-0445-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliana S Bernardes, Fabio RJ Vieira, Lygia MM Costa, Gerson Zaverucha

Abstract

BackgroundAn important problem in computational biology is the automatic detection of protein families (groups of homologous sequences). Clustering sequences into families is at the heart of most comparative studies dealing with protein evolution, structure, and function. Many methods have been developed for this task, and they perform reasonably well (over 0.88 of F-measure) when grouping proteins with high sequence identity. However, for highly diverged proteins the performance of these methods can be much lower, mainly because a common evolutionary origin is not deduced directly from sequence similarity. To the best of our knowledge, a systematic evaluation of clustering methods over distant homologous proteins is still lacking.ResultsWe performed a comparative assessment of four clustering algorithms: Markov Clustering (MCL), Transitive Clustering (TransClust), Spectral Clustering of Protein Sequences (SCPS), and High-Fidelity clustering of protein sequences (HiFix), considering several datasets with different levels of sequence similarity. Two types of similarity measures, required by the clustering sequence methods, were used to evaluate the performance of the algorithms: the standard measure obtained from sequence¿sequence comparisons, and a novel measure based on profile-profile comparisons, used here for the first time.ConclusionsThe results reveal low clustering performance for the highly divergent datasets when the standard measure was used. However, the novel measure based on profile-profile comparisons substantially improved the performance of the four methods, especially when very low sequence identity datasets were evaluated. We also performed a parameter optimization step to determine the best configuration for each clustering method. We found that TransClust clearly outperformed the other methods for most datasets. This work also provides guidelines for the practical application of clustering sequence methods aimed at detecting accurately groups of related protein sequences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 3%
France 2 2%
Colombia 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Cuba 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
India 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
China 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 75 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 23%
Researcher 19 22%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 17%
Computer Science 12 14%
Engineering 4 5%
Linguistics 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2020.
All research outputs
#5,535,170
of 22,786,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,994
of 7,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,767
of 352,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#35
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.