small logo

Protein Classification Benchmark Collection

General information
Accession Number PCB00017
Record Name COG_Eukaryotes_Prokaryotes;
Created 12-DEC-2006
Updated 12-DEC-2006
Description Classification (functional annotation} of unicellular eukaryotic proteins based on prokaryotic sequences in the COG database.
Data
Data Description Protein sequences from COG
Download click here for the fasta file containing the sequences COG.fasta
Subdivision into training and test groups
Subdivision Description Only COGs with at least 8 eukaryotic and 16 prokaryotic members were selected. This selection resulted in 117 classification tasks. 
Positive Set Groups of protein sequences representing a biological function (COG), subdivided into eukaryotes (+test) and prokaryotes (+train). The eukaryotes included S. cerevisiae, S. pombe and E. cuniculi 
Negative Set The rest of the database divided in such a way that members of a COG can either be -test or -train 
Statistics Number of tasks 117
  Min Max Average  
Positive Train 16 1382 699  
Positive Test 8 246 127  
Negative Train 1413 1647 1530  
Negative test 1360 1382 1371  
Full statistics click here to download the full statistics file COG_big_17.stats or click view to view the file in a WEB layout
Cast Matrix click here to download the cast matrix COG_big_17.cast
Distance Matrix
Blast download matrix file COG_BLAST.dmx
Smith-Waterman download matrix file COG_SW.dmx
Needleman-Wunsch download matrix file COG_NW.dmx
Results
Summary
Method\Comparison BLASTSW
1nn0.99180.9940
RF-0.9953
SVM0.99960.9994
LogReg-0.9889

Average AUC values for the 117 classification tasks in this record (benchmark test)
Detailed view

Select the methods using multiple select (Ctrl +Mouse)
Select the dinstance measures
Group by Method
Distance Measure
view in a web layout
donwload the result file


Methods Used
[1] COG

A subset of the COG database (database of orthologous protein sequences) (Tatusov, et al., 2001) was used. 117 orthologous groups (COGs) were selected that contained at least 8 eukaryotic and 16 prokaryotic sequences.


Tatusov, R.L., Natale, D.A., Garkavtsev, I.V., Tatusova, T.A., Shankavaram, U.T., Rao, B.S., Kiryutin, B., Galperin, M.Y., Fedorova, N.D. and Koonin, E.V. (2001) The COG database: new developments in phylogenetic classification of proteins from complete genomes, Nucleic Acids Res, 29, 22-28.


[2] BLAST distance matrix.

An all against all comparison was carried out using BLAST (Altschul, et al., 1990) version 2.2.13 downloaded from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/download.shtml The BLOSUM62 matrix was used with a gap opening penalty of 11 and a gap extension penalty of 1 (default parameters). The results were stored in a compressed, tab-delimited ASCII file.


Altschul, S.F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E.W. and Lipman, D.J. (1990) Basic local alignment search tool, J Mol Biol, 215, 403-410.


[3] Smith-Waterman

An all against all comparison was carried out using the Smith-Waterman algorithm (Smith and Waterman, 1981) as implemented in the water program of EMBOSS (Rice, et al., 2000). The program was downloaded from ftp://ftp.bioinformatics.org/pub/biobrew/. The BLOSUM62 matrix was used with a gap opening penalty of 10 and a gap extension penalty of 0.5 (default parameters). The results were stored in a compressed, tab-delimited ASCII file.


Smith, T.F. and Waterman, M.S. (1981) Identification of common molecular subsequences, J. Mol. Biol., 147, 195-197.

Rice, P., Longden, I. and Bleasby, A. (2000) EMBOSS: the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite, Trends Genet, 16, 276-277.


[4] Needleman-Wunsch

An all against all comparision was carried out using the Needleman-Wunsch algorithm (Needleman and Wunsch, 1970) as implemented in the needle program of EMBOSS (Rice, et al., 2000). The program was downloaded from ftp://ftp.bioinformatics.org/pub/biobrew/. The BLOSUM62 matrix was used with a gap opening penalty of 10 and a gap extension penalty of 0.5 (default). The results were stored in a compressed, tab-delimited ASCII file.


Needleman, S.B. and Wunsch, C.D. (1970) A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins, J Mol Biol, 48, 443-453.

Rice, P., Longden, I. and Bleasby, A. (2000) EMBOSS: the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite, Trends Genet, 16, 276-277.


[5] Local Alignment kernel

The Local Alignment Kernel program version 0.3 of Saigo and associates (Saigo, et al., 2004) was downloaded from http://cg.ensmp.fr/~vert/. The following run parameters were used: Default comparison matrix found in the parameters.h file. Gap opening penalty = 11 (default), Gap extension penalty = 1 (default), Scaling parameter = 0.5.


Saigo, H., Vert, J.P., Ueda, N. and Akutsu, T. (2004) Protein homology detection using string alignment kernels, Bioinformatics, 20, 1682-1689.


[6] Nearest negihbour classification

Nearest neighbour (1NN) classification is a technique whereby a query sequence is assigned to the a priori known class of the database entry that was found most similar to it in terms of a distance/similarity measure (for an introduction see Duda, et al., 2001).


Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E. and Stork, D.G. (2000) Pattern Classification. John Wiley & Sons, New York.


[7] Performance Evaluation

The evaluation of classification performance was carried out by the standard receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis (for an introduction see (Duda, et al., 2000)). This method is designed to test the ranking ability of a given classifier based on a real-valued ranking parameter. In the case of nearest neighbour classification, the ranking parameter was a similarity/distance parameter calculated between an object and the nearest member of the positive training set (outlier detection). Briefly, the analysis is carried out by plotting sensitivity vs 1-specificity at various threshold values, then the resulting curve is integrated to give an “area under curve” or AUC value. These values are determined for each classification experiment. For a perfect ranking, AUC=1.0, for random ranking AUC=0.5 (Egan, 1975).


Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E. and Stork, D.G. (2000) Pattern Classification. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Egan, J.P. (1975) Signal Detection theory and ROC Analysis. New York.


 



©2006 ICGEBNet