Hubbry Logo
Sequence analysisSequence analysisMain
Open search
Sequence analysis
Community hub
Sequence analysis
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sequence analysis
Sequence analysis
Sequence analysis
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In bioinformatics, sequence analysis is the process of subjecting a DNA, RNA or peptide sequence to any of a wide range of analytical methods to understand its features, function, structure, or evolution. It can be performed on the entire genome, transcriptome or proteome of an organism, and can also involve only selected segments or regions, like tandem repeats and transposable elements. Methodologies used include sequence alignment, searches against biological databases, and others.[1]

Since the development of methods of high-throughput production of gene and protein sequences, the rate of addition of new sequences to the databases increased very rapidly. Such a collection of sequences does not, by itself, increase the scientist's understanding of the biology of organisms. However, comparing these new sequences to those with known functions is a key way of understanding the biology of an organism from which the new sequence comes. Thus, sequence analysis can be used to assign function to coding and non-coding regions in a biological sequence usually by comparing sequences and studying similarities and differences. Nowadays, there are many tools and techniques that provide the sequence comparisons (sequence alignment) and analyze the alignment product to understand its biology.Sequence analysis in molecular biology includes a very wide range of processes:[citation needed]

  1. The comparison of sequences to find similarity, often to infer if they are related (homologous)
  2. Identification of intrinsic features of the sequence such as active sites, post translational modification sites, gene-structures, reading frames, distributions of introns and exons and regulatory elements
  3. Identification of sequence differences and variations such as point mutations and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in order to get the genetic marker.
  4. Revealing the evolution and genetic diversity of sequences and organisms
  5. Identification of molecular structure from sequence alone.

History

[edit]

Since the very first sequences of the insulin protein were characterized by Fred Sanger in 1951, biologists have been trying to use this knowledge to understand the function of molecules.[2][3] He and his colleagues' discoveries contributed to the successful sequencing of the first DNA-based genome.[4] The method used in this study, which is called the "Sanger method" or Sanger sequencing, was a milestone in sequencing long strand molecules such as DNA. This method was eventually used in the Human Genome Project.[5] According to Michael Levitt, sequence analysis was born in the period from 1969 to 1977.[6] In 1969 the analysis of sequences of transfer RNAs was used to infer residue interactions from correlated changes in the nucleotide sequences, giving rise to a model of the tRNA secondary structure.[7] In 1970, Saul B. Needleman and Christian D. Wunsch published the first computer algorithm for aligning two sequences.[8] Over this time, developments in obtaining nucleotide sequence improved greatly, leading to the publication of the first complete genome of a bacteriophage in 1977.[9] Robert Holley and his team in Cornell University were believed to be the first to sequence an RNA molecule.[10]

Overview of nucleotide sequence analysis (DNA and RNA)

[edit]

Nucleotide sequence analyses identify functional elements like protein binding sites, uncover genetic variations like SNPs, study gene expression patterns, and understand the genetic basis of traits. It helps to understand mechanisms that contribute to processes like replication and transcription. Some of the tasks involved are outlined below.[citation needed]

Quality control and preprocessing

[edit]

Quality control assesses the quality of sequencing reads obtained from the sequencing technology (e.g. Illumina). It is the first step in sequence analysis to limit wrong conclusions due to poor quality data. The tools used at this stage depend on the sequencing platform. For instance, FastQC checks the quality of short reads (including RNA sequences), Nanoplot or PycoQC are used for long read sequences (e.g. Nanopore sequence reads), and MultiQC aggregates the result of FastQC in a webpage format.[11][12][13]

Quality control provides information such as read lengths, GC content, presence of adapter sequences (for short reads), and a quality score, which is often expressed on a PHRED scale.[14] If adapters or other artifacts from PCR amplification are present in the reads (particularly short reads), they are removed using software such as Trimmomatic[15] or Cutadapt.[16]

Read alignment

[edit]

At this step, sequencing reads whose quality have been improved are mapped to a reference genome using alignment tools like BWA[17] for short DNA sequence reads, minimap[18] for long read DNA sequences, and STAR[19] for RNA sequence reads. The purpose of mapping is to find the origin of any given read based on the reference sequence. It is also important for detecting variations or phylogenetic studies. The output from this step, that is, the aligned reads, are stored in compatible file formats known as SAM, which contains information about the reference genome as well as individual reads. Alternatively, BAM file formats are preferred as they use much less desk or storage space.[14]

Note: This is different from sequence alignment which compares two or more whole sequences (or sequence regions) to quantify similarity or differences or to identify an unknown sequence (as discussed below).

The following analyses steps are peculiar to DNA sequences:

Variant calling

[edit]

Identifying variants is a popular aspect of sequence analysis as variants often contain information of biological significance, such as explaining the mechanism of drug resistance in an infectious disease. These variants could be single nucleotide variants (SNVs), small insertions/deletions (indels), and large structural variants. The read alignments are sorted using SAMtools, after which variant callers such as GATK[20] are used to identify differences compared to the reference sequence.

The choice of variant calling tool depends heavily on the sequencing technology used, so GATK is often used when working with short reads, while long read sequences require tools like DeepVariant[21] and Sniffles.[22] Tools may also differ based on organism (prokaryotes or eukaryotes), source of sequence data (cancer vs metagenomic), and variant type of interest (SNVs or structural variants). The output of variant calling is typically in vcf format, and can be filtered using allele frequencies, quality scores, or other factors based on the research question at hand.[14]

Variant annotation

[edit]

This step adds context to the variant data using curated information from peer-reviewed papers and publicly available databases like gnomAD and Ensembl. Variants can be annotated with information about genomic features, functional consequences, regulatory elements, and population frequencies using tools like ANNOVAR or SnpEff,[23] or custom scripts and pipeline. The output from this step is an annotation file in bed or txt format.[14]

Visualization and interpretation

[edit]

Genomic data, such as read alignments, coverage plots, and variant calls, can be visualized using genome browsers like IGV (Integrative Genomics Viewer) or UCSC Genome Browser. Interpretation of the results is done in the context of the biological question or hypothesis under investigation. The output can be a graphical representation of data in the forms of Circos plots, volcano plots, etc., or other forms of report describing the observations.[14]

DNA sequence analysis could also involve statistical modeling to infer relationships and epigenetic analysis, like identifying differential methylation regions using a tool like DSS.[citation needed]

The following steps are peculiar to RNA sequences:

Gene expression analysis

[edit]

Mapped RNA sequences are analyzed to estimate gene expression levels using quantification tools such as HTSeq,[24] and identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between experimental conditions using statistical methods like DESeq2.[25] This is carried out to compare the expression levels of genes or isoforms between or across different samples, and infer biological relevance.[14] The output of gene expression analysis is typically a table with values representing the expression levels of gene IDs or names in rows and samples in the columns as well as standard errors and p-values. The results in the table can be further visualized using volcano plots and heatmaps, where colors represent the estimated expression level. Packages like ggplot2 in R and Matplotlib in Python are often used to create the visuals. The table can also be annotated using a reference annotation file, usually in GTF or GFF format to provide more context about the genes, such as the chromosome name, strand, and start and positions, and aid result interpretation.[14][12][13][26]

Functional enrichment analysis

[edit]
See also: Transcriptomic technologies

Functional enrichment analysis identifies biological processes, pathways, and functional impacts associated with differentially expressed genes obtained from the previous step. It uses tools like GOSeq[27] and Pathview.[28] This creates a table with information about what pathways and molecular processes are associated with the differentially expressed genes, what genes are down or upregulated, and what gene ontology terms are recurrent or over-represented.[14][12][13][26]

RNA sequence analysis explores gene expression dynamics and regulatory mechanisms underlying biological processes and diseases. Interpretation of images and tables are carried out within the context of the hypotheses being investigated.[citation needed]

Analyzing protein sequences

[edit]

Proteome sequence analysis studies the complete set of proteins expressed by an organism or a cell under specific conditions. It describes protein structure, function, post-translational modifications, and interactions within biological systems. It often starts with raw mass spectrometry (MS) data from proteomics experiments, typically in mzML, mzXML, or RAW file formats.[14]

Beyond preprocessing raw MS data to remove noise, normalize intensities, and detect peaks and converting proprietary file formats (e.g., RAW) to open-source formats (mzML, mzXML) for compatibility with downstream analysis tools, other analytical steps include peptide identification, peptide quantification, protein inference and quantification, generating quality control report, and normalization, imputation and significance testing. The choice and order of analytical steps depend on the MS method used, which can either be data dependent acquisition (DDA) or independent acquisition (DIA).[14][29]

Genome browsers in sequence analysis

[edit]

Genome browsers offer a non-code, user-friendly interface to visualize genomes and genomic segments, identify genomic features, and analyze the relationship between numerous genomic elements. The three primary genome browsers—Ensembl genome browser, UCSC genome browser, and the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)—support different sequence analysis procedures, including genome assembly, genome annotation, and comparative genomics like exploring differential expression patterns and identifying conserved regions. All browsers support multiple data formats for upload and download and provide links to external tools and resources for sequence analyses, which contributes to their versatility.[30][31]

Sequence alignment

[edit]
Main article: Sequence_alignment § Pairwise_alignment
Main article: Multiple sequence alignment
Example multiple sequence alignment

There are millions of protein and nucleotide sequences known. These sequences fall into many groups of related sequences known as protein families or gene families. Relationships between these sequences are usually discovered by aligning them together and assigning this alignment a score. There are two main types of sequence alignment. Pair-wise sequence alignment only compares two sequences at a time and multiple sequence alignment compares many sequences. Two important algorithms for aligning pairs of sequences are the Needleman-Wunsch algorithm and the Smith-Waterman algorithm. Popular tools for sequence alignment include:[citation needed]

A common use for pairwise sequence alignment is to take a sequence of interest and compare it to all known sequences in a database to identify homologous sequences. In general, the matches in the database are ordered to show the most closely related sequences first, followed by sequences with diminishing similarity. These matches are usually reported with a measure of statistical significance such as an Expectation value.[citation needed]

Profile comparison

[edit]

In 1987, Michael Gribskov, Andrew McLachlan, and David Eisenberg introduced the method of profile comparison for identifying distant similarities between proteins.[32] Rather than using a single sequence, profile methods use a multiple sequence alignment to encode a profile which contains information about the conservation level of each residue. These profiles can then be used to search collections of sequences to find sequences that are related. Profiles are also known as Position Specific Scoring Matrices (PSSMs). In 1993, a probabilistic interpretation of profiles was introduced by Anders Krogh and colleagues using hidden Markov models.[33][34] These models have become known as profile-HMMs.

In recent years,[when?] methods have been developed that allow the comparison of profiles directly to each other. These are known as profile-profile comparison methods.[35]

Sequence assembly

[edit]

Sequence assembly refers to the reconstruction of a DNA sequence by aligning and merging small DNA fragments. It is an integral part of modern DNA sequencing. Since presently-available DNA sequencing technologies are ill-suited for reading long sequences, large pieces of DNA (such as genomes) are often sequenced by (1) cutting the DNA into small pieces, (2) reading the small fragments, and (3) reconstituting the original DNA by merging the information on various fragments.[citation needed]

Recently, sequencing multiple species at one time is one of the top research objectives. Metagenomics is the study of microbial communities directly obtained from the environment. Different from cultured microorganisms from the lab, the wild sample usually contains dozens, sometimes even thousands of types of microorganisms from their original habitats.[36] Recovering the original genomes can prove to be very challenging.[citation needed]

Gene prediction

[edit]
Main article: Gene prediction

Gene prediction or gene finding refers to the process of identifying the regions of genomic DNA that encode genes. This includes protein-coding genes as well as RNA genes, but may also include the prediction of other functional elements such as regulatory regions. Geri is one of the first and most important steps in understanding the genome of a species once it has been sequenced. In general, the prediction of bacterial genes is significantly simpler and more accurate than the prediction of genes in eukaryotic species that usually have complex intron/exon patterns. Identifying genes in long sequences remains a problem, especially when the number of genes is unknown. Hidden markov models can be part of the solution.[37] Machine learning has played a significant role in predicting the sequence of transcription factors.[38] Traditional sequencing analysis focused on the statistical parameters of the nucleotide sequence itself (The most common programs used are listed in Table 4.1). Another method is to identify homologous sequences based on other known gene sequences (Tools see Table 4.3).[36] The two methods described here are focused on the sequence. However, the shape feature of these molecules such as DNA and protein have also been studied and proposed to have an equivalent, if not higher, influence on the behaviors of these molecules.[39]

Protein structure prediction

[edit]
Main article: Threading (protein sequence)
Target protein structure (3dsm, shown in ribbons), with Calpha backbones (in gray) of 354 predicted models for it submitted in the CASP8 structure-prediction experiment.

The 3D structures of molecules are of major importance to their functions in nature. Since structural prediction of large molecules at an atomic level is a largely intractable problem, some biologists introduced ways to predict 3D structure at a primary sequence level. This includes the biochemical or statistical analysis of amino acid residues in local regions and structural the inference from homologs (or other potentially related proteins) with known 3D structures.[citation needed]

There have been a large number of diverse approaches to solve the structure prediction problem. In order to determine which methods were most effective, a structure prediction competition was founded called CASP (Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction).[40]

Computational approaches and techniques

[edit]

Sequence analysis tasks are often non-trivial to resolve and require the use of relatively complex approaches, many of which are the backbone behind many existing sequence analysis tools. Of the many methods used in practice, the most popular include the following:[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sequence analysis

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Sequence analysis is a core discipline within bioinformatics that entails the computational processing and interpretation of biological sequences, including DNA, RNA, and protein data, to elucidate their structural features, functional roles, and evolutionary histories. This field employs a variety of algorithms and statistical methods to compare sequences, identify patterns, and predict biological significance, forming the foundation for advancements in genomics, proteomics, and personalized medicine. Key techniques in sequence analysis include pairwise sequence alignment, which uses dynamic programming algorithms like Needleman-Wunsch for global alignments and Smith-Waterman for local alignments to detect similarities between two sequences, revealing conserved regions indicative of shared ancestry or function. For larger-scale comparisons, extends this to numerous sequences, aiding in the construction of phylogenetic trees and the identification of motifs or domains. Database searching tools such as BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) and its variants (e.g., PSI-BLAST for iterative searches) enable rapid querying against vast repositories like or , facilitating homology detection with high sensitivity and speed. Additionally, Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) and machine learning approaches, including support vector machines (SVMs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs), are applied to profile sequences, predict secondary structures, and classify novel data. The integration of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has revolutionized sequence analysis by generating millions of short reads (typically 100–150 base pairs) from platforms like Illumina, necessitating robust assembly algorithms and variant calling pipelines to reconstruct full genomes or detect mutations. Historically, sequence analysis gained prominence following the elucidation of DNA's double-helix structure and accelerated with the Project's draft publication in 2001, which underscored the need for scalable computational tools to handle exponential data growth. Today, it underpins critical applications, from annotating the approximately 20,000 protein-coding genes to modeling protein folds via methods like comparative modeling and fragment assembly, ultimately supporting and evolutionary studies across the over 2 million described .

Introduction

Definition and scope

Sequence analysis refers to the computational examination of biological sequences, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, using algorithms to identify patterns, similarities, differences, and functional elements within these sequences. This process aims to decode the underlying biological information encoded in the linear arrangements of nucleotides or amino acids, enabling insights into molecular functions, structures, and evolutionary relationships. The scope of sequence analysis primarily encompasses nucleotide sequences—comprising DNA (with bases adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine) and RNA (with uracil substituting for thymine)—as well as amino acid sequences that form proteins from 20 standard building blocks. It involves applying mathematical and statistical models to raw sequence data, often generated from high-throughput technologies, to extract meaningful biological interpretations without relying on experimental validation alone. This domain excludes non-sequence biological data, such as imaging or metabolic profiles, concentrating instead on the one-dimensional string representations of genetic and proteomic material. Core tasks in sequence analysis include similarity searching to detect homologous regions between sequences, motif finding to locate conserved functional patterns like binding sites, multiple sequence alignment to compare evolutionary divergences, gene prediction to infer coding regions, and annotation to assign functional labels based on sequence features. These tasks facilitate evolutionary inference by reconstructing phylogenetic trees from sequence variations and support functional predictions, such as protein secondary structure, through probabilistic models. Alignment techniques, for instance, form a foundational method here, quantifying sequence conservation to infer shared ancestry or functional constraints. While sequence analysis is integral to bioinformatics, it distinguishes itself by focusing exclusively on sequence-specific computational methods, rather than the broader integration of diverse biological datasets, modeling, or database management that characterize the field as a whole. This targeted approach ensures rigorous handling of sequence variability, error correction, and tailored to linear polymeric .

Importance and applications

Sequence analysis plays a pivotal role in genomics by enabling the comprehensive decoding of entire genomes, as exemplified by its foundational contribution to the Human Genome Project, which produced a reference sequence that has served as a benchmark for subsequent genomic studies. This project relied on sequence analysis techniques to assemble and annotate the roughly 3 billion base pairs of human DNA, facilitating the identification of genes and regulatory elements that underpin biological function. In , sequence analysis is essential for pinpointing disease-causing genetic variants, allowing clinicians to tailor treatments based on an individual's genomic profile. For instance, whole-genome sequencing identifies rare mutations linked to conditions like cancer or rare genetic disorders, enabling targeted therapies that improve patient outcomes. Variant identification through sequence analysis has thus become a cornerstone of precision and . Sequence analysis significantly advances evolutionary biology by reconstructing phylogenetic relationships among species through comparative DNA or protein sequence alignments, revealing patterns of divergence and adaptation over time. In phylogenetics, it supports the construction of evolutionary trees that trace ancestry and speciation events, as seen in studies of microbial diversity and vertebrate evolution. Additionally, in synthetic biology, sequence analysis aids in designing novel genetic constructs by predicting how engineered sequences will function in host organisms, accelerating the creation of custom biological pathways. The impact of sequence analysis extends to , where it drives by analyzing protein sequences to predict binding sites and molecular interactions for potential therapeutics. In vaccine design, it enables the rapid identification of antigenic epitopes from genomes, as demonstrated in the development of mRNA against viral diseases through sequence-based . The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies since the 2000s has fueled an exponential increase in the volume of sequence data, with repositories of raw sequencing data, such as the Sequence Read Archive (SRA), reaching petabyte scales and in the terabyte range (approximately 8 TB as of 2025), both expanding rapidly due to high-throughput production. This surge, characterized by a more than 100-fold rise in data output per decade, has democratized access to genomic information and amplified the applications of sequence analysis across research and industry.

Historical Development

Early foundations

The foundations of sequence analysis were laid in the mid-20th century through biochemical methods primarily focused on protein sequencing. In the 1940s and 1950s, Frederick Sanger developed techniques to determine the amino acid composition and sequence of proteins, culminating in the complete sequencing of insulin in 1955, which revealed the structure of its two polypeptide chains linked by disulfide bonds. This work earned Sanger the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1958 for his contributions to the determination of protein structures, marking the first time a protein's primary sequence was fully elucidated. Early efforts also included partial sequencing of nucleic acids, but these were limited by the complexity of handling DNA and RNA molecules. The 1970s saw a pivotal transition from protein to DNA sequencing, driven by advances in that emphasized direct analysis of genetic material. In 1977, two independent methods revolutionized : the chemical cleavage approach by Allan Maxam and , which used base-specific reactions to fragment labeled DNA for readout, and Sanger's chain-termination (dideoxy) method, which incorporated modified to halt at specific points. These techniques enabled the determination of longer DNA sequences with greater accuracy and efficiency than prior manual methods, shifting the focus of sequence analysis toward genomic studies. For their pioneering innovations, Sanger and Gilbert shared the 1980 . As DNA sequences accumulated, the need for computational tools emerged to store, organize, and compare them. The European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) established the first public nucleotide sequence database in 1980 to collect and distribute DNA and RNA data, initially tied to scientific publications and addressing the growing volume of sequence information. Concurrently, early software for sequence visualization appeared, such as the dot-matrix (or diagram) method introduced by A.J. Gibbs and G.A. McIntyre in 1970, which plotted sequences against each other to reveal similarities through diagonal lines, applicable to both amino acid and nucleotide data. This graphical approach laid the groundwork for computational alignment techniques, facilitating the initial handling of sequence data before more advanced algorithms developed later.

Key milestones in computational methods

The development of dynamic programming algorithms marked a foundational milestone in computational sequence analysis. In 1970, Saul B. Needleman and Christian D. Wunsch introduced the Needleman-Wunsch algorithm, which uses dynamic programming to perform global alignments of protein or sequences by optimizing a score based on matches, mismatches, and gaps, enabling systematic comparison of entire sequences. This approach laid the groundwork for quantitative sequence similarity assessment. Subsequently, in 1981, Temple F. Smith and Michael S. Waterman extended the method with the Smith-Waterman algorithm, adapting it for local alignments to identify conserved subsequences without requiring full-sequence matching, which proved particularly useful for detecting functional domains in divergent sequences. The 1990s saw significant advances in scalable search tools, with the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) revolutionizing rapid database querying. Developed by Stephen F. Altschul and colleagues, BLAST approximates local alignments using word-matching and extension strategies, dramatically reducing computational time compared to exhaustive dynamic programming while maintaining high sensitivity for homology detection; it quickly became the standard for sequence similarity searches in . This efficiency enabled the analysis of growing sequence databases, facilitating discoveries in and function. The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies from 2005 onward transformed sequence analysis by enabling high-throughput data generation. Platforms like Illumina's sequencing-by-synthesis method, which produces billions of short reads in parallel, and PacBio's , offering longer reads for complex regions, exponentially increased data volume and accuracy, shifting analysis paradigms toward scalable bioinformatics pipelines. However, NGS data posed challenges in read assembly due to short read lengths and error rates, necessitating innovations in graph-based algorithms. Large-scale projects like the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), launched in 2003, exemplified the integration of computational methods with high-throughput sequencing to map functional genomic elements. The ENCODE consortium developed standardized pipelines for annotating non-coding regions, transcription factors, and regulatory motifs across the human genome, influencing subsequent analyses in epigenomics and disease association studies. In 2020, DeepMind's AlphaFold achieved a breakthrough in protein sequence analysis by predicting three-dimensional structures with atomic accuracy using deep learning on sequence and evolutionary data, as demonstrated in the CASP14 competition, thereby bridging primary sequence analysis with structural biology. This was further advanced in 2024 with AlphaFold 3, which expanded predictions to include biomolecular interactions involving DNA, RNA, and ligands. A major milestone in genomic assembly occurred in 2022, when the Telomere-to-Telomere (T2T) Consortium produced the first complete, gapless sequence of a (T2T-CHM13), filling the remaining ~8% of previously unsequenced regions using long-read technologies and advanced computational assembly methods. Post-2010, the integration of , particularly deep neural networks, enhanced core tasks like variant calling from NGS data. Tools such as DeepVariant employ convolutional networks to interpret raw sequencing alignments, outperforming traditional statistical methods in accuracy for single-nucleotide polymorphisms and indels, especially in diverse populations and low-coverage scenarios. This shift toward AI-driven approaches has accelerated precision medicine applications by improving the detection of clinically relevant variants.

Fundamentals of Biological Sequences

Types of sequences and data formats

Biological sequences analyzed in bioinformatics and molecular biology primarily encompass nucleotide sequences derived from deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA), as well as amino acid sequences from proteins. These sequences serve as the foundational data for computational analysis, encoding genetic information and functional properties. Nucleotide sequences are composed of four canonical bases: in DNA, adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T); in RNA, uracil (U) substitutes for thymine while retaining the other three. To represent uncertainties or mixtures in sequencing data, ambiguity codes defined by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) are employed, such as R for purines (A or G), Y for pyrimidines (C or T/U), and N for any base. These codes facilitate the handling of polymorphic or low-quality regions in sequence data. Protein sequences, in contrast, consist of chains of 20 standard , each represented by a unique one-letter code established by the IUPAC-IUB Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature to enable compact notation in computational tools and databases. For instance, A denotes , C , D , and E , with the full set covering essential building blocks like hydrophobic residues (e.g., F for ) and charged ones (e.g., K for ). This standardized alphabet ensures across analysis software and supports the encoding of primary information critical for predicting higher-order protein features. Sequence data are stored and exchanged using standardized formats to ensure compatibility and include metadata for context. The , introduced for efficient biological sequence comparison, consists of a header line beginning with '>' followed by a descriptive identifier and the sequence itself, often used for unaligned raw sequences without quality information. FASTQ builds on this by incorporating per-base quality scores in a fourth line per record (after the header, sequence, and separator), quantifying sequencing error probabilities via Phred scores, which is vital for high-throughput data from platforms like Illumina. flat files provide a more comprehensive structure for annotated sequences, featuring sections for locus details, references, features (e.g., genes or exons), and the origin, enabling rich biological annotation alongside the raw sequence. For alignment outputs, the Sequence Alignment/Map (SAM) format stores read alignments in a tab-delimited text structure, including flags for mapping quality and optional tags, while its binary counterpart BAM enables compact, indexed storage for efficient querying in large-scale . In genome assembly contexts, sequences form hierarchical structures: contigs represent contiguous stretches assembled from overlapping reads without internal gaps, whereas scaffolds extend this by ordering and orienting multiple contigs using pairing information, with estimated gaps between them to approximate larger regions. Sequence lengths vary widely by source and technology, establishing the scale for pipelines. Short reads from next-generation sequencing typically range from 50 to 500 base pairs (), suitable for high-coverage mapping, whereas assembled genomes can reach megabases for bacterial chromosomes or billions for eukaryotes; the human reference genome, for example, comprises approximately 3.1 gigabase pairs (Gb) across 24 chromosomes. This range—from oligonucleotide probes at tens of to full eukaryotic genomes—underpins the diversity of storage and processing requirements in sequence .

Basic statistical and computational concepts

Sequence statistics form the foundation for characterizing biological sequences, providing insights into their compositional properties. Base composition refers to the relative frequencies of nucleotides (A, C, G, T in DNA) or amino acids (20 standard types in proteins) within a sequence or genome. For DNA, it is often summarized by the proportions of each base, which can reveal biases such as AT-rich or GC-rich regions. A key metric is the GC content, defined as the percentage of guanine (G) and cytosine (C) bases in the DNA, calculated as GC content=G+CA+C+G+T×100%\text{GC content} = \frac{G + C}{A + C + G + T} \times 100\%. This measure correlates strongly with bacterial phylogeny, ranging from about 25% to 75% across species, and influences genome stability, gene expression, and evolutionary pressures. k-mer frequencies extend base composition by counting the occurrences of all substrings of length kk (k-mers) in a , capturing local patterns and repetitions. For example, in a DNA , 3-mers like "AAA" or "GCG" are tallied to build frequency distributions, which are useful for detecting compositional anomalies or estimating coverage in sequencing . These frequencies often follow multimodal distributions across genomes, reflecting underlying mutational biases and selection forces, with higher-order k-mers (e.g., k>10k > 10) revealing species-specific signatures. Probability models underpin the generation and analysis of biological sequences by assuming stochastic processes. Markov chains model sequences where the probability of each symbol depends only on the previous one (first-order) or a fixed number of preceding symbols (higher-order). In a first-order Markov chain for DNA, the transition probability P(Xi+1=b∣Xi=a)P(X_{i+1} = b | X_i = a) represents the likelihood of base bb following base aa, forming a transition matrix estimated from observed frequencies in training sequences. These models generate sequences probabilistically and detect non-random patterns, such as in gene promoters, by comparing observed transitions to expected ones under independence. Higher-order chains, with memory length mm, use P(Xi=b∣Xi−m,…,Xi−1)P(X_{i} = b | X_{i-m}, \dots, X_{i-1}), improving accuracy for correlated biological data but increasing parameter complexity. Computational complexity addresses the efficiency of sequence analysis algorithms, particularly for pairwise comparisons. Naive dynamic programming for global alignment of two sequences of lengths nn and mm requires O(nm)O(nm) time and space, filling a scoring matrix to optimize matches, mismatches, and gaps, which becomes prohibitive for long sequences (e.g., n=m=106n = m = 10^6 yields 101210^{12} operations). Heuristics, such as indexing or banding, reduce this to sub-quadratic time in practice, enabling analysis of large datasets like whole genomes. Key distance metrics quantify differences between sequences. The measures mismatches in aligned sequences of equal length, defined as the number of positions at which corresponding symbols differ (e.g., for "" and "ACTT", it is 1). It assumes no insertions or deletions, making it suitable for fixed-length comparisons like short reads. The () extends this by allowing insertions, deletions, and substitutions, each costing 1, to find the minimum operations transforming one sequence into another; for unequal lengths, it captures evolutionary changes more comprehensively in bioinformatics applications. Error models account for inaccuracies in sequencing data. The Phred score assesses base-calling quality from chromatogram traces, defined as Q=−10log⁡10(Perror)Q = -10 \log_{10} (P_{\text{error}}), where PerrorP_{\text{error}} is the estimated probability of an incorrect base call. Scores above 20 indicate error rates below 1%, guiding filtering in downstream analyses; this logarithmic scale facilitates probabilistic thresholding and has become standard since its introduction for automated sequencers.

Nucleotide Sequence Analysis

Preprocessing and quality assessment

Preprocessing and quality assessment represent the initial critical steps in nucleotide sequence analysis, particularly for next-generation sequencing (NGS) data, where raw reads in FASTQ format often contain artifacts, errors, and biases that can propagate inaccuracies in downstream analyses. These steps involve evaluating the quality of sequencing output and applying filters to remove or mitigate problematic elements, ensuring that only reliable data proceeds to tasks such as read alignment. Tools like FastQC provide a comprehensive overview of data quality by generating reports on various metrics, enabling researchers to identify issues early and intervene appropriately. Common error sources in NGS data include PCR amplification artifacts, which arise during library preparation and can lead to overrepresentation of certain sequences, and sequencing biases such as GC content bias, where regions with extreme GC levels exhibit reduced coverage due to inefficient amplification or clustering on platforms like Illumina. PCR artifacts often manifest as chimeric sequences or uneven amplification, while GC bias is particularly pronounced in whole-genome sequencing, significantly skewing variant detection in high-GC regions without correction. To assess these, FastQC evaluates per-base sequence quality using Phred scores, where scores above 20 indicate a 1% error probability per base, and flags drops in quality toward read ends typical of Illumina data. Other key metrics include sequence duplication levels, which highlight PCR-induced redundancy (ideally below 20-30% for diverse libraries), and overrepresented sequences, often adapters or primers that contaminate reads. GC content distribution is also checked against expected genomic profiles to detect bias, with deviations signaling potential issues. Quality control procedures typically begin with trimming adapters and low-quality bases to salvage usable portions of reads. Tools such as Trimmomatic perform this flexibly, using sliding window algorithms to remove segments with average Phred scores below a threshold (e.g., 20) and trimming leading/trailing bases below 3, often reducing read length by 5-10% while improving overall quality. Following assessment, filtering removes contaminants like microbial or rRNA sequences using alignment-based tools (e.g., Bowtie2 against contaminant databases) and eliminates duplicates via tools like Picard MarkDuplicates, which identify exact or near-exact read pairs to prevent inflation of coverage estimates. For applications requiring uniform representation, such as , normalization techniques adjust for coverage disparities, often by subsampling high-depth regions to achieve even distribution. These steps culminate in the production of filtered FASTQ files, which are then suitable for subsequent read alignment and assembly.

Read alignment and assembly

Read alignment involves mapping short nucleotide sequencing reads to a reference genome to determine their genomic positions. This process is essential for resequencing projects where a high-quality reference is available. Common aligners use the Burrows-Wheeler transform (BWT) for efficient indexing and searching of large reference genomes. For instance, the Burrows-Wheeler Aligner (BWA) and its extensions like BWA-MEM employ BWT-based methods to achieve fast and accurate alignment of short to medium-length reads (up to several hundred base pairs), outperforming earlier hash-based methods in speed and sensitivity. Alignments can be ungapped, which match reads exactly without allowing insertions or deletions, or gapped, which permit such indels to handle sequencing errors and biological variations. Ungapped alignments are computationally simpler and faster, suitable for highly similar sequences, but gapped alignments are preferred for genomic data to capture structural differences accurately. BWA's backtrack , for example, supports gapped alignments by extending seed matches with dynamic programming. Aligned reads provide the foundation for downstream analyses, such as variant calling. De novo assembly reconstructs the original sequence from unaligned reads without a , a critical approach for novel organisms. In the era, the overlap-layout-consensus (OLC) paradigm dominated, where reads are first overlapped to build a graph, laid out into contigs, and a derived by voting on base calls. Tools like Phrap and the Celera assembler exemplified OLC for longer Sanger reads (500–1000 bp). With next-generation sequencing (NGS) producing shorter reads (50–300 bp), de Bruijn graph-based methods became prevalent, decomposing reads into k-mers (substrings of length k) to form a graph where nodes represent (k-1)-mers and edges connect overlapping k-mers, enabling efficient traversal for assembly. Seminal tools include , which uses de Bruijn graphs to resolve repeats by modeling coverage and pairing information. NGS assembly faces challenges from short read lengths and repetitive regions, which create ambiguities in graph resolution as identical k-mers can arise from distant genomic loci. Repeats longer than read length often lead to fragmented contigs or misassemblies. Assembly quality is assessed using metrics like N50 contig length, the shortest length where the cumulative contig size reaches 50% of the total assembly, with higher N50 indicating better contiguity. Hybrid approaches mitigate these issues by integrating long-read technologies, such as PacBio's (producing reads >10 kb), with short NGS reads for error correction and . Tools like hybridSPAdes combine de Bruijn graphs for short reads with OLC for long reads to produce more complete assemblies. Evaluation frameworks like QUAST compute metrics including N50, genome fraction covered, and misassembly rates by aligning assemblies to references or using read mapping.

Variant identification and annotation

Variant identification in nucleotide sequence analysis involves detecting differences, or variants, between an individual's and a reference , typically after read alignment. These variants include single polymorphisms (SNPs), insertions/deletions (indels), and larger structural variants (SVs). The process begins with variant calling, which uses statistical models to infer genotypes from aligned sequencing data, accounting for sequencing errors and coverage variability. A widely adopted for SNP and detection is the Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK), developed by the Broad Institute, which employs a haplotype-based approach to reassemble local sequences and call variants. GATK's HaplotypeCaller module models the data using to compute genotype likelihoods, estimating the probability of each possible (homozygous reference, heterozygous, or homozygous alternate) given the observed reads. This method improves accuracy by incorporating prior probabilities and error rates, enabling joint across multiple samples to refine calls. For example, in whole-genome sequencing, GATK identifies millions of SNPs and thousands of indels per sample, enabling high-accuracy variant calling for high-confidence variants. Variants are classified by origin and type, distinguishing germline variants—present in all cells and inherited from parents—from somatic variants, which arise post-conception in specific tissues, such as tumors, and are not heritable. Germline variants affect every cell, while somatic ones are often detected by comparing tumor-normal pairs, with allele frequencies typically below 50%. Structural variants, including copy number variations (CNVs) that alter DNA segment dosage, represent a significant portion of genomic diversity, comprising up to 1% of the genome length but impacting gene function profoundly. Detection of SVs and CNVs relies on read depth, paired-end discordance, and split reads, though short-read sequencing challenges resolution for events under 50 bp. Annotation assigns biological context to identified variants, determining their location and potential impact using tools like ANNOVAR, which efficiently maps variants to genes, regulatory regions, and evolutionary conservation scores. In coding regions, variants can be synonymous (no change), missense (altering one ), or (introducing premature stop codons, leading to truncated proteins). Non-coding variants, comprising over 98% of the , may disrupt enhancers, promoters, or splice sites, affecting gene regulation without direct protein changes. ANNOVAR integrates databases to classify these effects, such as labeling a missense variant as "deleterious" based on functional predictions. To filter common polymorphisms and focus on rare or novel variants, population databases like dbSNP from NCBI and the are essential. dbSNP catalogs over 1 billion human variants, including frequency data from diverse populations, allowing users to exclude benign SNPs with minor allele frequencies above 1%. The provides a haplotype-resolved reference panel from 2,504 individuals across 26 populations, enabling imputation and filtering of low-frequency variants to prioritize disease-associated ones. These resources reduce false positives by contextualizing variants against global diversity. Prioritization of variants for pathogenicity often uses computational scores like SIFT and PolyPhen-2, which predict functional impact on and stability. SIFT assesses conservation and physicochemical properties to score missense variants as tolerated (score >0.05) or deleterious, achieving about 80% accuracy on benchmark datasets. PolyPhen-2 employs on sequence and structural features, classifying variants as benign, possibly damaging, or probably damaging, with improved performance over earlier versions. These tools guide clinical interpretation, though they are combined with experimental validation for high-confidence calls.

Expression and functional analysis

Expression and functional analysis in nucleotide sequence analysis focuses on quantifying gene activity and inferring biological roles from data. involves sequencing derived from to capture the , enabling the measurement of levels across samples. Reads are typically mapped to a reference using spliced aligners such as , which efficiently handles splicing junctions, or HISAT2, which incorporates graph-based indexing for faster alignment. Following alignment, expression quantification normalizes read counts to account for sequencing depth and transcript length, commonly using fragments per kilobase of transcript per million mapped reads (FPKM) or transcripts per million (TPM). FPKM, introduced in early studies, scales counts by transcript length and total mapped fragments to estimate relative abundance. TPM refines this by first normalizing to transcript length across all features, providing more comparable values across samples and genes. Differential expression analysis identifies genes with significant changes in expression between conditions, such as treated versus control samples. Tools like DESeq2 model read counts with a negative binomial distribution, estimating fold changes and dispersions while applying shrinkage to improve statistical power and reduce false positives. This approach computes adjusted p-values to detect differentially expressed genes, often reporting log2 fold changes to quantify magnitude. Isoform detection complements this by reconstructing transcript structures to reveal alternative splicing events, where a single gene produces multiple mRNA variants. StringTie assembles aligned reads into transcripts, estimating isoform abundances and identifying splicing patterns like exon skipping or intron retention. Functional enrichment analysis interprets lists of differentially expressed by assessing overrepresentation in predefined biological categories. The (GO) consortium provides structured vocabularies for molecular functions, biological processes, and cellular components, while databases map pathways such as signaling cascades. Enrichment is typically evaluated using the hypergeometric test, also known as , which calculates the probability of observing the intersection of gene lists under a of random selection. This identifies enriched terms, such as upregulation in pathways, providing insights into affected biological mechanisms. Single-cell RNA-Seq extends bulk analysis to individual cells, revealing heterogeneous expression profiles within tissues. After preprocessing to remove low-quality cells and normalizing for technical noise, techniques like precede clustering to group cells by similar transcriptomes. Methods such as Seurat integrate clustering with identification to annotate cell types, enabling the construction of expression profiles for rare populations, like stem cells in tumors. Recent extensions include multimodal approaches like combining with protein data, and variational autoencoders (e.g., scVI) for batch correction and enhanced clustering. Variant annotation tools can briefly highlight how expression-affecting variants, such as those in promoters, influence these profiles.

Protein Sequence Analysis

Primary structure features

The primary structure of a protein, defined by its linear sequence of , encodes key physicochemical properties that influence folding, stability, and function. These properties include hydrophobicity, charge, and size, which are quantified using established scales derived from experimental data. Hydrophobicity, a critical determinant of protein and interactions, is commonly evaluated with the Kyte-Doolittle scale, which assigns values ranging from -4.5 (most hydrophilic, ) to +4.5 (most hydrophobic, ) based on transfer free energies and burial tendencies in protein structures. Charge properties classify as positively charged (, , ), negatively charged (, ), or neutral, reflecting their side-chain ionization states at physiological and impacting electrostatic interactions. Size, often measured by van der Waals volumes or accessible surface areas, varies significantly from (smallest) to (one of the largest), affecting packing density and steric hindrance in the sequence. Composition analysis of protein sequences involves calculating amino acid frequency counts, which reveal biases such as overrepresentation of certain residues in specific protein classes (e.g., high in ), and deriving the (pI), the at which the net charge is zero. Frequency counts are computed by tallying occurrences of each of the 20 standard , normalized as percentages, to assess overall composition and detect anomalies like low in extracellular proteins. The pI is the at which the net charge is zero, calculated using the Henderson-Hasselbalch applied to the pKa values of all ionizable groups (e.g., pKa ~3.9), including side chains and termini, enabling predictions of protein behavior in electrophoretic separations. These analyses provide foundational insights into sequence stability and without requiring structural data. Periodicities in primary structure, such as repeating patterns in amino acid propensities, indicate potential local folding tendencies observable directly from the sequence. The Chou-Fasman parameters quantify these by assigning helix (Pα) and sheet (Pβ) propensities to each amino acid, derived from statistical frequencies in known structures; for instance, alanine has high Pα (1.42) favoring alpha-helices, while valine has elevated Pβ (1.70) for beta-sheets. These values highlight periodic distributions, like heptad repeats in coiled coils, that correlate with secondary structure formation in linear contexts. Sites for post-translational modifications (PTMs) are identifiable in primary sequences through consensus motifs, altering protein activity and localization. occurs primarily on serine, , and residues, predicted by surrounding basic or acidic contexts (e.g., R-X-X-S motif for proline-directed kinases), with tools like NetPhos achieving ~80% accuracy on eukaryotic sequences. sites, typically N-linked at in the N-X-S/T motif or O-linked on serine/, are recognized by sequence patterns and solvent accessibility estimates, influencing protein trafficking and stability. Intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs), lacking stable secondary , are predicted from primary features like low hydrophobicity and high net charge. The IUPred algorithm estimates disorder by pairwise inter-residue interaction energies, scoring regions above 0.5 as disordered; it excels at identifying low-complexity segments in proteins like , where IDRs facilitate binding versatility. Such predictions underscore how composition promotes flexibility essential for regulatory functions.

Secondary structure prediction

Secondary structure prediction involves inferring the local folding patterns of a protein, such as alpha-helices, beta-sheets, and coils (or loops), directly from its primary . This process is crucial for understanding protein architecture without relying on experimental structures like or NMR. Early methods focused on empirical rules derived from known structures, while modern approaches leverage to incorporate sequence context and evolutionary data. One foundational propensity-based method is the Chou-Fasman algorithm, which calculates the likelihood of each residue forming a specific secondary element based on observed frequencies in a database of solved protein structures. For instance, residues like and exhibit high propensity for alpha-helices, while and favor beta-sheets; the algorithm scans the sequence to identify potential sites and extends them probabilistically. This approach achieved modest accuracies, typically around 50-60% for three-state predictions, but highlighted the importance of residue-specific preferences. Advancements in have significantly improved prediction reliability, with becoming a cornerstone. The PSIPRED method exemplifies this by employing a two-stage feed-forward : first, PSI-BLAST generates position-specific scoring matrices (PSSMs) from multiple sequence alignments to capture evolutionary conservation, then these profiles are fed into the network trained on known structures to output per-residue probabilities for (H), strand (E), or coil (C). PSIPRED typically attains a Q3 accuracy—measuring the percentage of correctly predicted residues in a three-state model—of about 76-80% on benchmark datasets like CB513. The JPred server integrates similar principles but enhances them through a consensus of neural networks (JNet algorithm), which processes PSSMs and (HMM) profiles derived from alignments to refine predictions. JPred's jury-based approach averages outputs from multiple specialized networks, yielding Q3 accuracies around 77-81% and supporting both single-sequence and alignment-based inputs. These methods underscore the critical role of evolutionary information, as predictions improve markedly when homologous sequences are available. In practice, secondary structure predictions serve as key restraints in template-free protein modeling, guiding fragment assembly and energy minimization to construct three-dimensional models from scratch. However, limitations persist, particularly for proteins lacking detectable homologs, where single-sequence predictions drop to 60-70% Q3 accuracy due to the heavy reliance on multiple sequence alignments for contextual signals.

Functional motif detection

Functional motifs in protein sequences are short, conserved patterns that often indicate specific biochemical functions, such as enzymatic activity or molecular interactions. These motifs, typically 3 to 20 long, differ from larger protein domains, which are structural folds spanning 50 to 200 residues and encompassing broader functional units. Short linear motifs (SLiMs), a subset of functional motifs, are particularly short (3-10 residues) and frequently occur in intrinsically disordered regions, mediating transient protein-protein interactions. In contrast, domains form stable globular structures essential for catalysis or binding. Detection of functional motifs relies on pattern-matching techniques tailored to their sequence characteristics. , a database of protein families and domains, uses regular expressions—concise string patterns—to identify motifs like active sites and binding regions in uncharacterized sequences. For more sensitive detection, especially in distantly related proteins, employs hidden Markov models (HMMs) that model position-specific conservation and variability within motif alignments. These HMMs capture probabilistic transitions between states, enabling the recognition of motifs with insertions or deletions. De novo discovery of novel motifs, without prior knowledge, is facilitated by tools like , which applies expectation-maximization algorithms to uncover statistically significant patterns in sets of related sequences. Integrated scans across multiple databases are provided by , combining signatures from , , and others to annotate motifs comprehensively. Representative examples include the active site motif in serine/ protein kinases, captured by pattern PS00108: [LIVM]-x-[LIVM]-{P}-x-[DE]-x-[STN]-x(2)-[STN]-x(3)-[LIVMFY]-{P}-[LIVM]-x(2)-[LIVM], which coordinates ATP binding and phosphate transfer. DNA-binding motifs, such as the (HTH) pattern [LVIM]-x(2)-[LIVM]-x(3)-[R]-[LIVMFY]-x(2)-[LIVM], are essential for transcription factors interacting with DNA major grooves. These motifs can be extended using profile-based comparisons to align similar sequences and refine boundaries. Validation of detected motifs emphasizes evolutionary conservation, as functional patterns are under selective pressure and persist across orthologs. Scores like the average conservation index, calculated from multiple sequence alignments of homologs, quantify motif reliability by measuring similarity relative to flanking regions. High conservation scores, often above 0.7 on a 0-1 scale, support functional significance, distinguishing true motifs from spurious matches.

Alignment and Comparison Methods

Pairwise sequence alignment

Pairwise sequence alignment is a fundamental technique in bioinformatics used to identify regions of similarity between two biological sequences, such as DNA, RNA, or proteins, which may indicate functional, structural, or evolutionary relationships. This process involves inserting gaps to optimize the alignment and assigning scores to matches, mismatches, and gaps to quantify similarity. The optimal alignment maximizes the overall score based on a predefined scoring scheme, enabling the detection of homologous sequences despite mutations, insertions, or deletions. Global alignment, introduced by Needleman and Wunsch in 1970, computes the best alignment over the entire length of two sequences using dynamic programming. This method constructs a scoring matrix where each cell represents the optimal alignment score for the corresponding prefixes of the sequences, with recurrence relations incorporating match/mismatch scores and gap penalties. It is particularly suitable for sequences of similar length and overall homology, such as closely related genes. The original algorithm used linear gap penalties, where the cost of a gap is proportional to its length. To address biological realism, affine gap penalties were later incorporated, distinguishing between the higher cost of initiating a gap and the lower cost of extending it, as proposed by Gotoh in 1982. This modification requires three matrices in the dynamic programming approach to track alignment states: one for matches, one for gap openings in the first sequence, and one for gap openings in the second. Affine penalties better model evolutionary events, where opening a gap (e.g., an insertion or deletion) is more costly than extending it. The gap cost under this model is given by: Gap cost=−(h+k⋅l)\text{Gap cost} = -(h + k \cdot l) where hh is the gap opening penalty, kk is the gap extension penalty, and ll is the gap length (with l≥1l \geq 1). Local alignment, developed by Smith and Waterman in 1981, focuses on the highest-scoring subsequence regions rather than the full sequences, making it ideal for detecting conserved domains within divergent sequences. Like global alignment, it employs dynamic programming but allows scores to reset to zero, ensuring non-negative values and identifying optimal local matches. This approach is computationally intensive, with time and space complexity of O(mn)O(mn) for sequences of lengths mm and nn. Scoring in both global and alignments relies on substitution matrices that assign values to aligned residue pairs based on observed evolutionary substitutions. The Percent Accepted Mutations (PAM) matrices, derived by Dayhoff et al. in 1978 from alignments of closely related proteins, model short-term evolutionary changes and are extrapolated for longer divergences (e.g., PAM250 for distant homologs). In contrast, matrices, introduced by Henikoff and Henikoff in 1992, are derived from conserved blocks in distantly related proteins without assuming a specific evolutionary model, with BLOSUM62 being widely used for general-purpose alignments due to its balance of . The overall alignment score is the sum of substitution scores minus gap penalties, providing a quantitative measure of similarity. For large-scale database searches, exact dynamic programming is often too slow, leading to heuristic methods like , developed by Pearson and Lipman in 1988. FASTA accelerates searches by first identifying short, high-scoring word matches (e.g., k-tuples of length 2 for proteins), then extending them into diagonal bands and refining with full dynamic programming on promising regions. This approach maintains high sensitivity while reducing computation time, often by orders of magnitude compared to exhaustive methods. Assessing the of alignments is crucial to distinguish true homology from chance matches. Karlin and Altschul in derived extreme value distribution statistics for ungapped local alignments, leading to the E-value, which estimates the expected number of alignments with equal or higher scores in a database search by chance. The E-value is calculated as E=Km′n′e−λSE = K m' n' e^{-\lambda S}, where SS is the raw score, m′m' and n′n' are effective sequence lengths, and λ\lambda and KK are constants depending on the scoring system. Extensions account for gapped alignments, ensuring robust significance thresholds (e.g., E < 0.01 for confident hits).

Multiple sequence alignment

Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) is a fundamental bioinformatics technique that arranges three or more biological sequences—such as DNA, RNA, or proteins—to maximize similarity across positions, thereby highlighting conserved regions indicative of shared evolutionary history, functional domains, or structural elements. Unlike pairwise alignments, which serve as a foundational step, MSA extends this to groups of sequences to infer broader relationships and patterns that emerge only when multiple homologs are compared simultaneously. Progressive alignment methods, exemplified by Clustal Omega, build MSAs by first computing pairwise distances to construct a guide tree, then sequentially aligning sequences or clusters according to this tree's topology, starting from the most similar pairs and incorporating gaps as needed. This approach scales efficiently to thousands of sequences, achieving high accuracy for protein alignments through optimizations like HMM profile-profile joining and mBed algorithm for large datasets, with benchmarks showing superior speed over predecessors like ClustalW without sacrificing quality. In contrast, iterative methods such as MUSCLE refine initial progressive alignments through repeated cycles of progressive alignment and consistency-based objective function optimization, using progressive scores and partition functions to iteratively adjust positions for better overall coherence. MUSCLE demonstrates higher accuracy than ClustalW on diverse test sets, particularly for closely related sequences, while reducing time and space complexity to enable alignments of up to 50,000 sequences. Despite these advances, MSA remains computationally challenging, as the optimal alignment problem is NP-hard, rendering exact dynamic programming solutions infeasible for sets beyond a few short sequences due to exponential growth in possibilities. Handling insertions and deletions (indels) exacerbates this, as variable gap penalties and positions must balance local and global optimality without over-penalizing evolutionary events. Outputs from MSA often include aligned sequences that serve as input for phylogenetic tree construction, where branch lengths and topologies reflect divergence times and relationships derived from substitution patterns. In applications, MSAs enable the generation of consensus sequences that capture invariant motifs, aiding in the identification of regulatory elements or active sites across protein families.

Profile and pattern-based comparisons

Profile and pattern-based comparisons extend beyond direct sequence alignments by employing derived models, such as profiles and patterns, to detect subtle similarities in protein or nucleotide sequences, particularly for identifying distant homologs. These methods leverage statistical representations of conserved regions from multiple sequence alignments (MSAs), enabling more sensitive database searches than pairwise approaches. For instance, position-specific scoring matrices (PSSMs) are constructed from MSAs by calculating the frequency of each residue at every aligned position, assigning higher scores to conserved amino acids and penalties to mismatches, thus capturing evolutionary conservation patterns. PSSMs form the basis for iterative search tools like PSI-BLAST, which refines profiles through successive database rounds: an initial BLAST search identifies related sequences to build a PSSM, which is then used to query the database again, incorporating new hits to update the matrix and detect increasingly remote homologs. This iterative process significantly enhances sensitivity, allowing detection of relationships in the "twilight zone" where sequence identity falls below 30%, a regime where standard alignments often fail due to high divergence. In practice, PSI-BLAST can identify homologs with as little as 20-25% identity that share structural or functional similarities, as demonstrated in benchmark studies on protein superfamilies. Hidden Markov models (HMMs) provide a more sophisticated profile representation by modeling sequences as probabilistic automata that account for insertions, deletions, and substitutions, unlike rigid PSSMs. In tools like , an HMM profile is built from an MSA by estimating emission probabilities for residues at match states and transition probabilities between states, enabling explicit handling of gaps and variable-length regions. searches using these profiles achieve high sensitivity for remote homologs, outperforming PSSM-based methods in cases with significant indels, and is widely used for annotating protein domains in large databases. Seminal implementations in HMMER3 have accelerated searches to match BLAST speeds while maintaining probabilistic rigor. Pattern-based comparisons focus on short, conserved motifs described by regular expression-like rules, which scan sequences for exact or approximate matches to predefined signatures of functional sites or domains. The PROSITE database compiles such patterns, where each motif is a string of residue specifications (e.g., [ST]-x-[NQ] for phosphorylation sites), allowing rapid identification of catalytic residues or binding domains without full alignment. These patterns excel in specificity for well-conserved features but are less sensitive for divergent families compared to profiles, often serving as complements in hybrid search pipelines. PROSITE patterns, derived from curated literature, cover over 1,300 protein families and have been instrumental in functional annotation since their inception.

Genome-Wide and Structural Predictions

De novo sequence assembly

De novo sequence assembly involves reconstructing complete or near-complete genomic sequences from short or long fragmented reads generated by high-throughput sequencing technologies, without relying on a preexisting reference genome. This process is essential for studying novel organisms, such as unculturable microbes or newly sequenced species, where no reference is available. The core challenge lies in resolving overlaps between reads to form contiguous sequences called contigs, which can then be further linked into scaffolds representing larger genomic regions. Early methods focused on short reads from platforms like Illumina, while recent advances accommodate longer, error-prone reads from Pacific Biosciences or Oxford Nanopore technologies. Graph-based approaches dominate de novo assembly, particularly for short-read data, by representing sequence overlaps in compact structures that facilitate efficient computation. De Bruijn graphs, a foundational method, break reads into k-mers (subsequences of length k) and model the assembly problem as finding an Eulerian path through a directed graph where nodes are (k-1)-mers and edges represent k-mers. This approach reduces redundancy and handles sequencing errors by simplifying the overlap detection compared to explicit pairwise alignments. The Velvet assembler implements de Bruijn graphs with heuristics like the "tour bus" algorithm to resolve repeats and produce high-quality contigs from short reads, achieving assemblies with N50 contig lengths often exceeding 10 kb for bacterial genomes. Similarly, SPAdes extends de Bruijn graphs for single-cell and multi-cell data, incorporating multi-sized k-mers and iterative assembly to improve contiguity in uneven coverage scenarios, as demonstrated in assemblies of bacterial isolates with over 95% genome recovery. For long-read sequencing, overlap-layout-consensus (OLC) methods using overlap graphs are preferred due to the reads' length spanning repetitive regions. In overlap graphs, nodes represent individual reads, and edges indicate overlaps above a similarity threshold, allowing the assembly of a consensus sequence along a path that covers the genome. The Canu assembler employs adaptive k-mer weighting in an OLC framework to correct errors in noisy long reads from PacBio or , enabling scalable assembly of large genomes like human chromosomes with continuity improvements over prior tools, significantly reducing runtime (by up to an order of magnitude) compared to previous assemblers for large datasets. Scaffolding enhances assembly by ordering and orienting contigs into larger scaffolds using paired-end or mate-pair reads, which provide long-range linkage information through known insert sizes. Mate-pair libraries, with inserts spanning 2-10 kb, help bridge gaps by aligning read pairs to distant contigs, resolving ambiguities in repeat-rich regions and increasing scaffold N50 sizes by factors of 10-100 in eukaryotic assemblies. Tools integrated into assemblers like or SPAdes use graph-based scaffolding to discard inconsistent links, ensuring structural accuracy. Assembly quality is evaluated using metrics that assess completeness and accuracy, such as BUSCO (Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs), which measures the presence of conserved single-copy genes expected in a given lineage. A complete BUSCO score above 90% indicates robust genome recovery, while fragmented or missing orthologs highlight gaps; for instance, bacterial assemblies often achieve 95-99% completeness with de Bruijn methods. Misassembly rates, quantified by structural errors like inversions or translocations detected via reference-free tools like QUAST, are kept below 1% in optimized pipelines to ensure reliability. Key challenges in de novo assembly include handling repetitive sequences, which cause branch points in graphs leading to fragmented contigs, and chimeric artifacts from library preparation that introduce false joins. In metagenomics, uneven coverage across microbial species exacerbates these issues, resulting in incomplete bins and higher error rates, with repeat resolution remaining particularly difficult for elements longer than read lengths. Assemblies may be polished using reference-based alignment in hybrid approaches to correct base-level errors, though this is optional for purely de novo workflows.

Gene and operon prediction

Gene and operon prediction involves identifying coding regions and regulatory units within assembled nucleotide sequences from genomic data. This process is essential for annotating genomes post-assembly, distinguishing functional elements such as exons and operons from non-coding regions. In eukaryotes, gene prediction focuses on delineating exons, introns, and splice sites, while in prokaryotes, it emphasizes contiguous coding sequences and clustered operons that enable coordinated gene expression. Assembled sequences serve as the primary input for these predictions, providing the contiguous genomic context needed for accurate boundary detection. Ab initio methods predict genes based solely on sequence features without external evidence, relying on statistical models to recognize patterns like codon usage and splice signals. A seminal approach is the use of generalized hidden Markov models (GHMMs) in tools like GENSCAN, which models gene structures by representing states for exons, introns, and intergenic regions to predict exon-intron boundaries. GENSCAN employs duration modeling for variable-length features, such as intron lengths, achieving exon-level sensitivity and specificity of approximately 79% and 77%, respectively, on human genomic test sets. These methods excel in novel genomes lacking homologs but can struggle with alternative splicing or low gene density. Homology-based methods leverage alignments to known proteins or transcripts to infer gene structures, improving accuracy in conserved regions. The Exonerate tool performs fast, sensitive alignments between genomic sequences and protein queries, generating spliced alignments that account for introns and frameshifts to predict gene models. By using affine gap penalties and heuristic approximations, Exonerate facilitates homology searches in annotation pipelines, often outperforming simpler BLAST-based approaches in specificity for exon boundaries. This method is particularly effective for closely related species, where sequence similarity guides precise start and stop codon identification. Integrating multiple evidence types enhances prediction reliability, combining ab initio, homology, and transcriptomic data. The MAKER pipeline automates this by aligning RNA-Seq reads to assemblies, using expressed sequence tags (ESTs) to refine gene models and resolve ambiguities in start/stop sites. RNA-Seq evidence boosts sensitivity for lowly expressed genes, with MAKER improving gene model accuracy in model organisms by integrating such data. This evidence-based strategy reduces false positives from ab initio predictions alone, producing polished annotations suitable for downstream functional analysis. In prokaryotes, operon prediction identifies clusters of genes transcribed as polycistronic mRNAs, often delimited by Rho-independent terminators—stem-loop structures followed by poly-T tracts that halt transcription. Tools like Operon-mapper scan intergenic regions for these terminators, conserved gene pairs, and functional couplings, assigning confidence scores based on genomic context. Evaluated on bacterial genomes, Operon-mapper demonstrates sensitivity and specificity exceeding 85% for operon boundaries compared to curated databases. These predictions aid in understanding regulatory networks, with metrics highlighting challenges in distinguishing solo genes from small operons.

Protein tertiary structure prediction

Protein tertiary structure prediction involves computational methods to determine the three-dimensional (3D) arrangement of a protein's polypeptide chain from its amino acid sequence, enabling insights into function, interactions, and stability. This process is essential in sequence analysis as it bridges primary sequence data to spatial organization, often leveraging evolutionary information and physical principles. Traditional approaches rely on either known structural templates or physics-based simulations, while recent advances incorporate deep learning to achieve near-experimental accuracy for many proteins. Template-based methods, also known as homology modeling, predict structures by aligning the target sequence to homologous proteins with experimentally determined structures from databases like the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Tools such as MODELLER implement this by satisfying spatial restraints derived from the template's coordinates, generating models through optimization of loop regions and side-chain placements. For instance, MODELLER uses probabilistic alignments and energy minimization to construct full atomic models, performing well when sequence identity exceeds 30% with the template. Ab initio methods, in contrast, predict structures without relying on templates, instead assembling the fold from short fragments (typically 3-9 residues) derived from sequence libraries that match local conformational propensities. The Rosetta software suite exemplifies this approach through Monte Carlo fragment assembly combined with all-atom energy functions to explore conformational space and refine low-energy decoys. Secondary structure predictions can serve as intermediate constraints to guide fragment insertion in such simulations. These methods are particularly useful for novel folds lacking close homologs but remain computationally intensive for proteins beyond ~150 residues. Deep learning has revolutionized the field with end-to-end neural networks that predict 3D coordinates directly from sequences and multiple sequence alignments (MSAs). AlphaFold2, developed by DeepMind, employs an Evoformer module with attention mechanisms to process MSAs and pairwise residue representations, iteratively refining atomic positions via a structure module. This architecture captures long-range dependencies and evolutionary couplings, enabling high-fidelity predictions even for challenging targets. Subsequent developments, such as AlphaFold3 (released in 2024), further extend these capabilities to predict structures of protein complexes with DNA, RNA, ligands, and ions, achieving at least 50% improvement in accuracy for certain biomolecular interactions. Accuracy is evaluated using metrics like the Global Distance Test - Total Score (GDT-TS), which measures the percentage of aligned Cα atoms within specified distance cutoffs (e.g., 0.5 Å, 1 Å, 2 Å, 4 Å) between predicted and reference structures, with scores above 80 indicating high similarity. The Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) experiments benchmark these methods biennially; in CASP14 (2020), AlphaFold2 achieved a median GDT-TS of 92.4 across diverse targets, surpassing human expert modelers and traditional tools. Earlier CASP rounds highlighted template-based methods' strengths for homologous cases (GDT-TS >70) and limitations (GDT-TS ~40 for hard targets). Predicted tertiary structures facilitate applications such as identifying binding sites by revealing pockets and interfaces critical for interactions. For example, AlphaFold2 models have accelerated in by providing atomic-level details for docking simulations, as demonstrated in predicting protein-inhibitor complexes.

Tools and Computational Frameworks

Visualization tools and genome browsers

Visualization tools play a crucial role in sequence analysis by enabling researchers to interactively explore genomic data, annotations, and alignments at various scales. These tools transform complex sequence datasets into intuitive graphical representations, facilitating the identification of patterns, variants, and structural features that might be obscured in raw data formats. browsers and sequence viewers, in particular, support layered "tracks" for displaying genes, regulatory elements, and sequencing reads, while 3D visualization software extends this to molecular structures derived from sequence predictions. The is a widely used web-based platform that provides a rapid and reliable display of genomic regions at any resolution, from whole chromosomes to individual base pairs, overlaid with dozens of annotation tracks. It supports custom tracks uploaded in standard formats such as (Browser Extensible Data) for simple genomic intervals or (General Feature Format) for more detailed annotations, allowing users to integrate personal datasets like variant calls or expression profiles alongside public tracks. Launched in 2000 to visualize the assembly, it now serves over 170,000 unique users monthly and includes features like zoomable interfaces for smooth navigation and hyperlinks to external resources for deeper exploration. JBrowse offers an embeddable, JavaScript-based alternative to traditional genome browsers, emphasizing speed and flexibility for large-scale genomic data. It features smooth scrolling and zooming capabilities that scale to multi-gigabase genomes and high-coverage sequencing, with support for diverse track types including linear views, circular representations, and synteny plots for . Custom data can be loaded in BED or GFF formats, enabling the visualization of user-specific annotations such as gene models or structural variants directly in web applications or standalone instances. For sequence-specific viewing, the Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV) is a high-performance desktop tool designed for exploring next-generation sequencing alignments and variant data. IGV displays read alignments as pileups, allowing users to inspect coverage depth, mismatches, and indels at resolution, with zoomable interfaces that handle terabyte-scale datasets efficiently. It supports and GFF for annotation tracks, making it ideal for examining variant piles in the context of reference genomes and associated metadata. In the realm of three-dimensional structures predicted from protein sequences, PyMOL serves as a premier molecular visualization system, rendering atomic models with high-quality ray-tracing for publication-ready images. It enables interactive manipulation of structures, including ribbon diagrams, surface representations, and side-chain displays, to analyze folding, binding sites, and mutational effects derived from sequence analysis. Many of these tools incorporate integration features, such as access, to support dynamic querying and programmatic control; for instance, the provides a REST for retrieving sequence data and track information without manual navigation. This facilitates embedding visualizations in custom workflows or linking to variant displays for clinical interpretation.

Software pipelines and databases

Software pipelines in sequence analysis integrate multiple computational steps into automated workflows, enabling reproducible processing of large-scale genomic data. is an open-source, web-based platform designed for accessible, scalable biomedical research, particularly for next-generation sequencing (NGS) workflows that include data import, alignment, variant calling, and visualization without requiring programming expertise. Snakemake complements this by providing a Python-based that defines rules for scalable, reproducible analyses, handling dependencies and parallel execution across local or cluster environments, which is widely adopted in bioinformatics for tasks like assembly and . Central databases serve as repositories for raw sequences and annotations essential to pipeline inputs and validation. NCBI maintains an annotated collection of publicly available sequences from diverse organisms, facilitating global and integration into workflows. provides a comprehensive resource for protein sequences and functional information, including annotations on structure, interactions, and diseases, which supports downstream predictions in sequence pipelines. Ensembl offers genome-wide annotations for vertebrates and other eukaryotes, integrating gene models, regulatory elements, and data to enable accurate sequence interpretation. Standards for chaining analyses are embodied in frameworks like , an open-source project offering over 2,000 R packages tailored for genomic data handling, from sequence import and alignment to statistical modeling and visualization. These packages promote , allowing users to build modular pipelines that process raw reads through to biological insights, such as differential expression in data. Cloud computing enhances scalability for resource-intensive sequence analysis, with (AWS) providing secure, cost-effective infrastructure for storing petabytes of genomic data and running parallel workflows via services like AWS Batch and Amazon Omics. This enables rapid processing of large cohorts without local hardware limitations, supporting collaborative research in population genomics. Versioning ensures and collaboration in pipeline development; tracks changes in scripts and configurations, allowing branching for experimental variants and integration with tools in bioinformatics projects. Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) assign persistent identifiers to datasets, enabling citation and long-term access in sequence analysis repositories like those integrated with or Ensembl. These tools facilitate sharing via platforms that often link to genome browsers for data exploration.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK550342/
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/sequence-analysis
  3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0001900.pub2
  4. https://www.gencodegenes.org/human/stats.html
  5. https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-species-are-there
  6. https://www.nature.com/research-intelligence/nri-topic-summaries/sequence-analysis-for-l3-310206
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4066586/
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6875757/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7397223/
  10. https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gm359
  11. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-017-1319-7
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1310607/
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452310023000562
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8767913/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7127335/
  16. https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2025/03/11/genbank-release-265/
  17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4494865/
  19. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1958/sanger/facts/
  20. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1980/sanger/biographical/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC392330/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC431765/
  23. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1980/summary/
  24. https://www.embl.org/news/lab-matters/the-first-public-nucleotide-sequence-database-turns-25/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC102461/
  26. https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1970.tb01046.x
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5456129/
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022283670900574
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283605803602
  30. https://www.illumina.com/science/technology/next-generation-sequencing.html
  31. https://www.pacb.com/blog/the-evolution-of-dna-sequencing-tools/
  32. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1105136
  33. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2
  34. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07487-w
  35. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj6987
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30247488/
  37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/collab/FT/index
  38. https://iupac.qmul.ac.uk/AminoAcid/
  39. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/samplerecord/
  40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/grc/help/definitions/
  41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets/genome/GCF_000001405.40/
  42. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2009-10-10-r108
  43. http://www.mcb111.org/w06/durbin_book.pdf
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8274556/
  45. https://genome.cshlp.org/content/8/3/175.full
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2705234/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2336801/
  48. https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/29/8/1072/228832
  49. https://www.pacb.com/publications/hybridspades-an-algorithm-for-hybrid-assembly-of-short-and-long-reads/
  50. https://gatk.broadinstitute.org/hc/en-us/articles/360035890511-Assigning-per-sample-genotypes-HaplotypeCaller
  51. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23067-somatic--germline-mutations
  52. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1720-5
  53. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/38/16/e164/1749458
  54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/
  55. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09534
  56. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8
  57. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-018-0226-0
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022283682905150
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1450267/
  60. https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-016-0159-9
  61. https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pmic.200300771
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2242411/
  63. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr400585q
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9144484/
  65. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/38/suppl_1/D161/3112236
  66. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/26/1/320/2379329
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4489269/
  68. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/53/D1/D444/7905301
  69. https://prosite.expasy.org/PS00108
  70. https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-9-213
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10139944/
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5420325/
  73. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7265238/
  74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1438297/
  75. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3162770/
  76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2315319/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754317300551
  78. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/25/17/3389/1061651
  79. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002195
  80. https://prosite.expasy.org/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5411767/
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2134774/
  83. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9149143/
  84. https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-6-31
  85. https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-12-491
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10893003/
  87. https://salilab.org/pdf/Webb_MethodsInMolBiol_2013.pdf
  88. https://www.bakerlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Handl_et_al-2012-Proteins3A_Structure2C_Function2C_and_Bioinformatics.pdf
  89. https://proteopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Calculating_GDT_TS
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3932189/
  91. https://genome.ucsc.edu/goldenpath/help/hgTracksHelp.html
  92. https://genome.ucsc.edu/goldenpath/help/customTrack.html
  93. https://genomics.ucsc.edu/the-ucsc-genome-browser-25-years/
  94. https://jbrowse.org/jb2/
  95. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-023-02914-z
  96. https://jbrowse.org/jbrowse1.html
  97. https://academic.oup.com/bib/article/14/2/178/208453
  98. https://igv.org/doc/desktop/
  99. https://www.broadinstitute.org/scientific-community/software/integrative-genomics-viewer
  100. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-PyMOL-Molecular-Graphics-System-Delano/45b98fcf47aa90099d3c921f68c3404af98d7b56
  101. https://www.pymol.org/
  102. https://genome.ucsc.edu/goldenpath/help/api.html
  103. https://usegalaxy.org/
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2945788/
  105. https://snakemake.readthedocs.io/
  106. https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/28/19/2520/290322
  107. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/
  108. https://www.uniprot.org/
  109. https://www.ensembl.org/
  110. https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/workflows/html/sequencing.html
  111. https://aws.amazon.com/health/genomics/
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7921891/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.