ClipKIT: A multiple sequence alignment trimming software for accurate phylogenomic inference

Highly divergent sites in multiple sequence alignments (MSAs), which can stem from erroneous inference of homology and saturation of substitutions, are thought to negatively impact phylogenetic inference. Thus, several different trimming strategies have been developed for identifying and removing these sites prior to phylogenetic inference. However, a recent study reported that doing so can worsen inference, underscoring the need for alternative alignment trimming strategies. Here, we introduce ClipKIT, an alignment trimming software that, rather than identifying and removing putatively phylogenetically uninformative sites, instead aims to identify and retain parsimony-informative sites, which are known to be phylogenetically informative. To test the efficacy of ClipKIT, we examined the accuracy and support of phylogenies inferred from 14 different alignment trimming strategies, including those implemented in ClipKIT, across nearly 140,000 alignments from a broad sampling of evolutionary histories. Phylogenies inferred from ClipKIT-trimmed alignments are accurate, robust, and time saving. Furthermore, ClipKIT consistently outperformed other trimming methods across diverse datasets, suggesting that strategies based on identifying and retaining parsimony-informative sites provide a robust framework for alignment trimming.

Highly divergent sites in multiple sequence alignments are thought to negatively impact phylogenetic inference; trimming methods aim to remove these sites, but recent analysis suggests that doing so can worsen inference. This study introduces ClipKIT, a trimming method that instead aims to retain parsimony-informative sites; phylogenetic inference using ClipKIT-trimmed alignments is accurate, robust and time-saving.     

The impact of multiple protein sequence alignment on phylogenetic estimation

Multiple sequence alignment is typically the first step in estimating phylogenetic trees, with the assumption being that as alignments improve, so will phylogenetic reconstructions. Over the last decade or so, new multiple sequence alignment methods have been developed to improve comparative analyses of protein structure, but these new methods have not been typically used in phylogenetic analyses. In this paper, we report on a simulation study that we performed to evaluate the consequences of using these new multiple sequence alignment methods in terms of the resultant phylogenetic reconstruction. We find that while alignment accuracy is positively correlated with phylogenetic accuracy, the amount of improvement in phylogenetic estimation that results from an improved alignment can range from quite small to substantial. We observe that phylogenetic accuracy is most highly correlated with alignment accuracy when sequences are most difficult to align, and that variation in alignment accuracy can have little impact on phylogenetic accuracy when alignment error rates are generally low. We discuss these observations and implications for future work.     

An automated phylogenetic tree-based small subunit rRNA taxonomy and alignment pipeline (STAP)

Comparative analysis of small-subunit ribosomal RNA (ss-rRNA) gene sequences forms the basis for much of what we know about the phylogenetic diversity of both cultured and uncultured microorganisms. As sequencing costs continue to decline and throughput increases, sequences of ss-rRNA genes are being obtained at an ever-increasing rate. This increasing flow of data has opened many new windows into microbial diversity and evolution, and at the same time has created significant methodological challenges. Those processes which commonly require time-consuming human intervention, such as the preparation of multiple sequence alignments, simply cannot keep up with the flood of incoming data. Fully automated methods of analysis are needed. Notably, existing automated methods avoid one or more steps that, though computationally costly or difficult, we consider to be important. In particular, we regard both the building of multiple sequence alignments and the performance of high quality phylogenetic analysis to be necessary. We describe here our fully-automated ss-rRNA taxonomy and alignment pipeline (STAP). It generates both high-quality multiple sequence alignments and phylogenetic trees, and thus can be used for multiple purposes including phylogenetically-based taxonomic assignments and analysis of species diversity in environmental samples. The pipeline combines publicly-available packages (PHYML, BLASTN and CLUSTALW) with our automatic alignment, masking, and tree-parsing programs. Most importantly, this automated process yields results comparable to those achievable by manual analysis, yet offers speed and capacity that are unattainable by manual efforts.     

The deterministic effects of alignment bias in phylogenetic inference

Alignment of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences is a fundamental component of sequence‐based molecular phylogenetic studies. Here we examined how different alignment methods affect the phylogenetic trees that are inferred from the alignments. We used simulations to determine how alignment errors can lead to systematic biases that affect phylogenetic inference from those sequences. We compared four approaches to sequence alignment: progressive pairwise alignment, simultaneous multiple alignment of sequence fragments, local pairwise alignment and direct optimization. When taking into account branch support, implied alignments produced by direct optimization were found to show the most extreme behaviour (based on the alignment programs for which nearly equivalent alignment parameters could be set) in that they provided the strongest support for the correct tree in the simulations in which it was easy to resolve the correct tree and the strongest support for the incorrect tree in our long‐branch‐attraction simulations. When applied to alignment‐sensitive process partitions with different histories, direct optimization showed the strongest mutual influence between the process partitions when they were aligned and phylogenetically analysed together, which makes detecting recombination more difficult. Simultaneous alignment performed well relative to direct optimization and progressive pairwise alignment across all simulations. Rather than relying upon methods that integrate alignment and tree search into a single step without accounting for alignment uncertainty, as with implied alignments, we suggest that simultaneous alignment using the similarity criterion, within the context of information available on biological processes and function, be applied whenever possible for sequence‐based phylogenetic analyses.     

Joint Bayesian estimation of alignment and phylogeny

We describe a novel model and algorithm for simultaneously estimating multiple molecular sequence alignments and the phylogenetic trees that relate the sequences. Unlike current techniques that base phylogeny estimates on a single estimate of the alignment, we take alignment uncertainty into account by considering all possible alignments. Furthermore, because the alignment and phylogeny are constructed simultaneously, a guide tree is not needed. This sidesteps the problem in which alignments created by progressive alignment are biased toward the guide tree used to generate them. Joint estimation also allows us to model rate variation between sites when estimating the alignment and to use the evidence in shared insertion/deletions (indels) to group sister taxa in the phylogeny. Our indel model makes use of affine gap penalties and considers indels of multiple letters. We make the simplifying assumption that the indel process is identical on all branches. As a result, the probability of a gap is independent of branch length. We use a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to sample from the posterior of the joint model, estimating the most probable alignment and tree and their support simultaneously. We describe a new MCMC transition kernel that improves our algorithm's mixing efficiency, allowing the MCMC chains to converge even when started from arbitrary alignments. Our software implementation can estimate alignment uncertainty and we describe a method for summarizing this uncertainty in a single plot.     

Heads or tails: a simple reliability check for multiple sequence alignments

The question of multiple sequence alignment quality has received much attention from developers of alignment methods. Less forthcoming, however, are practical measures for addressing alignment quality issues in real life settings. Here, we present a simple methodology to help identify and quantify the uncertainties in multiple sequence alignments and their effects on subsequent analyses. The proposed methodology is based upon the a priori expectation that sequence alignment results should be independent of the orientation of the input sequences. Thus, for totally unambiguous cases, reversing residue order prior to alignment should yield an exact reversed alignment of that obtained by using the unreversed sequences. Such "ideal" alignments, however, are the exception in real life settings, and the two alignments, which we term the heads and tails alignments, are usually different to a greater or lesser degree. The degree of agreement or discrepancy between these two alignments may be used to assess the reliability of the sequence alignment. Furthermore, any alignment dependent sequence analysis protocol can be carried out separately for each of the two alignments, and the two sets of results may be compared with each other, providing us with valuable information regarding the robustness of the whole analytical process. The heads-or-tails (HoT) methodology can be easily implemented for any choice of alignment method and for any subsequent analytical protocol. We demonstrate the utility of HoT for phylogenetic reconstruction for the case of 130 sequences belonging to the chemoreceptor superfamily in Drosophila melanogaster, and by analysis of the BaliBASE alignment database. Surprisingly, Neighbor-Joining methods of phylogenetic reconstruction turned out to be less affected by alignment errors than maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods.     

系统发育研究中多重序列比对常见问题分析

在简单介绍序列比对原理的基础上,结合自己的经验,对经常出现的问题进行总结分析,以期在将来的序列比对工作中避免此类问题的发生.     

How well does the HoT score reflect sequence alignment accuracy?

Multiple sequence alignment is an essential tool in many areas of biological research, and the accuracy of an alignment can strongly affect the accuracy of a downstream application such as phylogenetic analysis, identification of functional motifs, or polymerase chain reaction primer design. The heads or tails (HoT) method (Landan G, Graur D. 2007. Heads or tails: a simple reliability check for multiple sequence alignments. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1380-1383.) assesses the consistency of an alignment by comparing the alignment of a set of sequences with the alignment of the same set of sequences written in reverse order. This study shows that HoT scores and the alignment accuracies are positively correlated, so alignments with higher HoT scores are preferable. However, HoT scores are overestimates of alignment accuracy in general, with the extent of overestimation depending on the method used for multiple sequence alignment.     

SATe-II: very fast and accurate simultaneous estimation of multiple sequence alignments and phylogenetic trees

Highly accurate estimation of phylogenetic trees for large data sets is difficult, in part because multiple sequence alignments must be accurate for phylogeny estimation methods to be accurate. Coestimation of alignments and trees has been attempted but currently only SATé estimates reasonably accurate trees and alignments for large data sets in practical time frames (Liu K., Raghavan S., Nelesen S., Linder C.R., Warnow T. 2009b. Rapid and accurate large-scale coestimation of sequence alignments and phylogenetic trees. Science. 324:1561-1564). Here, we present a modification to the original SATé algorithm that improves upon SATé (which we now call SATé-I) in terms of speed and of phylogenetic and alignment accuracy. SATé-II uses a different divide-and-conquer strategy than SATé-I and so produces smaller more closely related subsets than SATé-I; as a result, SATé-II produces more accurate alignments and trees, can analyze larger data sets, and runs more efficiently than SATé-I. Generally, SATé is a metamethod that takes an existing multiple sequence alignment method as an input parameter and boosts the quality of that alignment method. SATé-II-boosted alignment methods are significantly more accurate than their unboosted versions, and trees based upon these improved alignments are more accurate than trees based upon the original alignments. Because SATé-I used maximum likelihood (ML) methods that treat gaps as missing data to estimate trees and because we found a correlation between the quality of tree/alignment pairs and ML scores, we explored the degree to which SATé's performance depends on using ML with gaps treated as missing data to determine the best tree/alignment pair. We present two lines of evidence that using ML with gaps treated as missing data to optimize the alignment and tree produces very poor results. First, we show that the optimization problem where a set of unaligned DNA sequences is given and the output is the tree and alignment of those sequences that maximize likelihood under the Jukes-Cantor model is uninformative in the worst possible sense. For all inputs, all trees optimize the likelihood score. Second, we show that a greedy heuristic that uses GTR+Gamma ML to optimize the alignment and the tree can produce very poor alignments and trees. Therefore, the excellent performance of SATé-II and SATé-I is not because ML is used as an optimization criterion for choosing the best tree/alignment pair but rather due to the particular divide-and-conquer realignment techniques employed.     

Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments

Alignment quality may have as much impact on phylogenetic reconstruction as the phylogenetic methods used. Not only the alignment algorithm, but also the method used to deal with the most problematic alignment regions, may have a critical effect on the final tree. Although some authors remove such problematic regions, either manually or using automatic methods, in order to improve phylogenetic performance, others prefer to keep such regions to avoid losing any information. Our aim in the present work was to examine whether phylogenetic reconstruction improves after alignment cleaning or not. Using simulated protein alignments with gaps, we tested the relative performance in diverse phylogenetic analyses of the whole alignments versus the alignments with problematic regions removed with our previously developed Gblocks program. We also tested the performance of more or less stringent conditions in the selection of blocks. Alignments constructed with different alignment methods (ClustalW, Mafft, and Probcons) were used to estimate phylogenetic trees by maximum likelihood, neighbor joining, and parsimony. We show that, in most alignment conditions, and for alignments that are not too short, removal of blocks leads to better trees. That is, despite losing some information, there is an increase in the actual phylogenetic signal. Overall, the best trees are obtained by maximum-likelihood reconstruction of alignments cleaned by Gblocks. In general, a relaxed selection of blocks is better for short alignment, whereas a stringent selection is more adequate for longer ones. Finally, we show that cleaned alignments produce better topologies although, paradoxically, with lower bootstrap. This indicates that divergent and problematic alignment regions may lead, when present, to apparently better supported although, in fact, more biased topologies.     

PSAR: measuring multiple sequence alignment reliability by probabilistic sampling

Multiple sequence alignment, which is of fundamental importance for comparative genomics, is a difficult problem and error-prone. Therefore, it is essential to measure the reliability of the alignments and incorporate it into downstream analyses. We propose a new probabilistic sampling-based alignment reliability (PSAR) score. Instead of relying on heuristic assumptions, such as the correlation between alignment quality and guide tree uncertainty in progressive alignment methods, we directly generate suboptimal alignments from an input multiple sequence alignment by a probabilistic sampling method, and compute the agreement of the input alignment with the suboptimal alignments as the alignment reliability score. We construct the suboptimal alignments by an approximate method that is based on pairwise comparisons between each single sequence and the sub-alignment of the input alignment where the chosen sequence is left out. By using simulation-based benchmarks, we find that our approach is superior to existing ones, supporting that the suboptimal alignments are highly informative source for assessing alignment reliability. We apply the PSAR method to the alignments in the UCSC Genome Browser to measure the reliability of alignments in different types of regions, such as coding exons and conserved non-coding regions, and use it to guide cross-species conservation study.     

Effects of nucleotide sequence alignment on phylogeny estimation: a case study of 18S rDNAs of apicomplexa

The reconstruction of phylogenetic history is predicated on being able to accurately establish hypotheses of character homology, which involves sequence alignment for studies based on molecular sequence data. In an empirical study investigating nucleotide sequence alignment, we inferred phylogenetic trees for 43 species of the Apicomplexa and 3 of Dinozoa based on complete small-subunit rDNA sequences, using six different multiple-alignment procedures: manual alignment based on the secondary structure of the 18S rRNA molecule, and automated similarity-based alignment algorithms using the PileUp, ClustalW, TreeAlign, MALIGN, and SAM computer programs. Trees were constructed using neighboring-joining, weighted-parsimony, and maximum- likelihood methods. All of the multiple sequence alignment procedures yielded the same basic structure for the estimate of the phylogenetic relationship among the taxa, which presumably represents the underlying phylogenetic signal. However, the placement of many of the taxa was sensitive to the alignment procedure used; and the different alignments produced trees that were on average more dissimilar from each other than did the different tree-building methods used. The multiple alignments from the different procedures varied greatly in length, but aligned sequence length was not a good predictor of the similarity of the resulting phylogenetic trees. We also systematically varied the gap weights (the relative cost of inserting a new gap into a sequence or extending an already-existing gap) for the ClustalW program, and this produced alignments that were at least as different from each other as those produced by the different alignment algorithms. Furthermore, there was no combination of gap weights that produced the same tree as that from the structure alignment, in spite of the fact that many of the alignments were similar in length to the structure alignment. We also investigated the phylogenetic information content of the helical and nonhelical regions of the rDNA, and conclude that the helical regions are the most informative. We therefore conclude that many of the literature disagreements concerning the phylogeny of the Apicomplexa are probably based on differences in sequence alignment strategies rather than differences in data or tree-building methods.      

No so HoT – heads or tails is not able to reliably compare multiple sequence alignments

Most phylogenetic‐tree building applications use multiple sequence alignments as a starting point. A recent meta‐level methodology, called Heads or Tails, aims to reveal the quality of multiple sequence alignments by comparing alignments taken in the forward direction with the alignments of the same sequences when the sequences are reversed. Through an examination of a special case for multiple sequence alignment – pair‐wise alignments, where an optimal algorithm exists – and the use of a modi?ed global‐alignment application, it is shown that the forward and reverse alignments, even when they are the same, do not capture all the possible variations in the alignments and when the forward and reverse alignments differ there may be other alignments that remain unaccounted for. The implication is that comparing just the forward and (biologically irrelevant) reverse alignments is not sufficient to capture the variability in multiple sequence alignments, and the Heads or Tails methodology is therefore not suitable as a method for investigating multiple sequence alignment accuracy. Part of the reason is the inability of individual multiple sequence alignment applications to adequately sample the space of possible alignments. A further implication is that the Hall [Hall, B.G., 2008. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25, 1576–1580] methodology may create optimal synthetic multiple sequence alignments that extant aligners will be unable to completely recover ab initio due to alternative alignments being possible at particular sites. In general, it is shown that more divergent sequences will give rise to an increased number of alternative alignments, so sequence sets with a higher degree of similarity are preferable to sets with lower similarity as the starting point for phylogenetic tree building. © The Willi Hennig Society 2009.     

Improving accuracy of multiple sequence alignment algorithms based on alignment of neighboring residues

While most of the recent improvements in multiple sequence alignment accuracy are due to better use of vertical information, which include the incorporation of consistency-based pairwise alignments and the use of profile alignments, we observe that it is possible to further improve accuracy by taking into account alignment of neighboring residues when aligning two residues, thus making better use of horizontal information. By modifying existing multiple alignment algorithms to make use of horizontal information, we show that this strategy is able to consistently improve over existing algorithms on a few sets of benchmark alignments that are commonly used to measure alignment accuracy, and the average improvements in accuracy can be as much as 1–3% on protein sequence alignment and 5–10% on DNA/RNA sequence alignment. Unlike previous algorithms, consistent average improvements can be obtained across all identity levels.     

Measuring global credibility with application to local sequence alignment

Computational biology is replete with high-dimensional (high-D) discrete prediction and inference problems, including sequence alignment, RNA structure prediction, phylogenetic inference, motif finding, prediction of pathways, and model selection problems in statistical genetics. Even though prediction and inference in these settings are uncertain, little attention has been focused on the development of global measures of uncertainty. Regardless of the procedure employed to produce a prediction, when a procedure delivers a single answer, that answer is a point estimate selected from the solution ensemble, the set of all possible solutions. For high-D discrete space, these ensembles are immense, and thus there is considerable uncertainty. We recommend the use of Bayesian credibility limits to describe this uncertainty, where a (1−α)%, 0≤α≤1, credibility limit is the minimum Hamming distance radius of a hyper-sphere containing (1−α)% of the posterior distribution. Because sequence alignment is arguably the most extensively used procedure in computational biology, we employ it here to make these general concepts more concrete. The maximum similarity estimator (i.e., the alignment that maximizes the likelihood) and the centroid estimator (i.e., the alignment that minimizes the mean Hamming distance from the posterior weighted ensemble of alignments) are used to demonstrate the application of Bayesian credibility limits to alignment estimators. Application of Bayesian credibility limits to the alignment of 20 human/rodent orthologous sequence pairs and 125 orthologous sequence pairs from six Shewanella species shows that credibility limits of the alignments of promoter sequences of these species vary widely, and that centroid alignments dependably have tighter credibility limits than traditional maximum similarity alignments.     

Using multiple interdependency to separate functional from phylogenetic correlations in protein alignments

MOTIVATION: Multiple sequence alignments of homologous proteins are useful for inferring their phylogenetic history and to reveal functionally important regions in the proteins. Functional constraints may lead to co-variation of two or more amino acids in the sequence, such that a substitution at one site is accompanied by compensatory substitutions at another site. It is not sufficient to find the statistical correlations between sites in the alignment because these may be the result of several undetermined causes. In particular, phylogenetic clustering will lead to many strong correlations. RESULTS: A procedure is developed to detect statistical correlations stemming from functional interaction by removing the strong phylogenetic signal that leads to the correlations of each site with many others in the sequence. Our method relies upon the accuracy of the alignment but it does not require any assumptions about the phylogeny or the substitution process. The effectiveness of the method was verified using computer simulations and then applied to predict functional interactions between amino acids in the Pfam database of alignments.     

Structure-dependent sequence alignment for remotely related proteins

MOTIVATION: The quality of a model structure derived from a comparative modeling procedure is dictated by the accuracy of the predicted sequence-template alignment. As the sequence-template pairs are increasingly remote in sequence relationship, the prediction of the sequence-template alignments becomes increasingly problematic with sequence alignment methods. Structural information of the template, used in connection with the sequence relationship of the sequence-template pair, could significantly improve the accuracy of the sequence-template alignment. In this paper, we describe a sequence-template alignment method that integrates sequence and structural information to enhance the accuracy of sequence-template alignments for distantly related protein pairs. RESULTS: The structure-dependent sequence alignment (SDSA) procedure was optimized for coverage and accuracy on a training set of 412 protein pairs; the structures for each of the training pairs are similar (RMSD< approximately 4A) but the sequence relationship is undetectable (average pair-wise sequence identity = 8%). The optimized SDSA procedure was then applied to extend PSI-BLAST local alignments by calculating the global alignments under the constraint of the residue pairs in the local alignments. This composite alignment procedure was assessed with a testing set of 1421 protein pairs, of which the pair-wise structures are similar (RMSD< approximately 4A) but the sequences are marginally related at best in each pair (average pair-wise sequence identity = 13%). The assessment showed that the composite alignment procedure predicted more aligned residues pairs with an average of 27% increase in correctly aligned residues over the standard PSI-BLAST alignments for the protein pairs in the testing set.     

BigFoot: Bayesian alignment and phylogenetic footprinting with MCMC

Background  

We have previously combined statistical alignment and phylogenetic footprinting to detect conserved functional elements without assuming a fixed alignment. Considering a probability-weighted distribution of alignments removes sensitivity to alignment errors, properly accommodates regions of alignment uncertainty, and increases the accuracy of functional element prediction. Our method utilized standard dynamic programming hidden markov model algorithms to analyze up to four sequences.     

Probabilistic phylogenetic inference with insertions and deletions

A fundamental task in sequence analysis is to calculate the probability of a multiple alignment given a phylogenetic tree relating the sequences and an evolutionary model describing how sequences change over time. However, the most widely used phylogenetic models only account for residue substitution events. We describe a probabilistic model of a multiple sequence alignment that accounts for insertion and deletion events in addition to substitutions, given a phylogenetic tree, using a rate matrix augmented by the gap character. Starting from a continuous Markov process, we construct a non-reversible generative (birth-death) evolutionary model for insertions and deletions. The model assumes that insertion and deletion events occur one residue at a time. We apply this model to phylogenetic tree inference by extending the program dnaml in phylip. Using standard benchmarking methods on simulated data and a new "concordance test" benchmark on real ribosomal RNA alignments, we show that the extended program dnamlepsilon improves accuracy relative to the usual approach of ignoring gaps, while retaining the computational efficiency of the Felsenstein peeling algorithm.     

Barking Up The Wrong Treelength: The Impact of Gap Penalty on Alignment and Tree Accuracy

Several methods have been developed for simultaneous estimation of alignment and tree, of which POY is the most popular. In a 2007 paper published in Systematic Biology, Ogden and Rosenberg reported on a simulation study in which they compared POY to estimating the alignment using ClustalW and then analyzing the resultant alignment using maximum parsimony. They found that ClustalW+MP outperformed POY with respect to alignment and phylogenetic tree accuracy, and they concluded that simultaneous estimation techniques are not competitive with two-phase techniques. Our paper presents a simulation study in which we focus on the NP-hard optimization problem that POY addresses: minimizing treelength. Our study considers the impact of the gap penalty and suggests that the poor performance observed for POY by Ogden and Rosenberg is due to the simple gap penalties they used to score alignment/tree pairs. Our study suggests that optimizing under an affine gap penalty might produce alignments that are better than ClustalW alignments, and competitive with those produced by the best current alignment methods. We also show that optimizing under this affine gap penalty produces trees whose topological accuracy is better than ClustalW+MP, and competitive with the current best two-phase methods.