ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2022
Interpreting alignment-free sequence comparison: what makes a score a good score?
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genome-wide pervasiveness and localized variation of [Formula: see text]-mer-based genomic signatures in eukaryotes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A novel dynamic part-wise direct and complementary template matching approach for DNA sequence similarity identification.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2026Article
- Investigating within-host population diversity of Cryptosporidium parvum using BlooMine.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- TreeWave: command line tool for alignment-free phylogeny reconstruction based on graphical representation of DNA sequences and genomic signal processing.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Inference of the Life Cycle of Environmental Phages from Genomic Signature Distances to Their Hosts.Viruses · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alignment-free methods are alternatives to alignment-based methods when searching sequence data sets. The output from an alignment-free sequence comparison is a similarity score, the interpretation of which is not straightforward. We propose objective functions to interpret and calibrate outputs from alignment-free searches, noting that different objective functions are necessary for different biological contexts. This leads to advantages: visualising and comparing score distributions, including those from true positives, may be a relatively simple method to gain insight into the performance of different metrics. Using an empirical approach with both DNA and protein sequences, we characterise different similarity score distributions generated under different parameters. In particular, we demonstrate how sequence length can affect the scores. We show that scores of true positive sequence pairs may correlate significantly with their mean length; and even if the correlation is weak, the relative difference in length of the sequence pair may significantly reduce the effectiveness of alignment-free metrics. Importantly, we show how objective functions can be used with test data to accurately estimate the probability of true positives. This can significantly increase the utility of alignment-free approaches. Finally, we have developed a general-purpose software tool called KAST for use in high-throughput workflows on Linux clusters.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.