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