0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -3 -2 -2 0 -1 -2 -3 -3 -1 -1 1 0 -1 -4 -2 0 0 0 -1 -5 -3 -1 1 1 0 C A G A G G A G G C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 l global alignment is CAGAG- GAG-GC with score 0, while an optimal local alignment is G G ote that the optimal global alignment fails to align the two identical subsequences. r the local alignment algorithm is that the scoring scheme must be such that random pected score of less than zero. us, it is very sensitive to a realistic choice of scorin -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -1 -2 -3 -4 -3 -2 0 -1 -2 -3 -1 -1 1 0 -1 -2 0 0 0 -1 -3 -1 1 1 0 G A G G C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 ignment is CAGAG- GAG-GC with score 0, while an optimal lo e optimal global alignment fails to align the two identi alignment algorithm is that the scoring scheme must b G A G G C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 3 2 1 while an optimal local alignment is GAG GAG with lign the two identical subsequences. ring scheme must be such that random matches
for one kind of event. In o do occur as single character events in reality. Indels of multiple positions can be of a single position. us, we would like to handle gaps more realistically. trary Gap Penalties ne an arbitrary function γ(g) that species the cost of a gap or indel of length e for nding the optimal alignment becomes: S(s0..i , t0..j ) = max σ(si , tj ) + S(s0..i−1 , t0..j−1 ) −γ(k) + S(s0..i−k , t0..j )for k = 0 . . . i − 1 −γ(k) + S(s0..i , t0..j−k )for k = 0 . . . j − 1 we have added iteration over ∼ n possible gap lengths to the computation of ea hm is now O(n3). ne gap penalties n specic forms of γ(g) the computation can be bounded. e common case score, in which the score of a gap depends on only two values, an initiation c dless of length, and an extension cost e for each additional base in the gap. In o − (g − 1)e. is can be computed by the following recurrences:
forms of γ( ane gap score, in which the s gaps regardless of length, and a γ(g) = −d − (g − 1)e. is can b S(so...i , I(so...i , Specific gap penalty function: e gap penalties n specic forms of γ(g) the computation can be bounded. e common case score, in which the score of a gap depends on only two values, an initiation dless of length, and an extension cost e for each additional base in the gap. In − (g − 1)e. is can be computed by the following recurrences: S(so...i , t0...j ) = max σ(si , tj ) + S(s0...i−1 , t0...j−1 ) σ(si , tj ) + I(s0...i−1 , t0...j−1 ) I(so...i , t0...j ) = max −d + S(s0...i , t0...j−1 ) −e + I(s0...i , t0...j−1 ) −d + S(s0...i−1 , t0...j ) −e + I(s0...i−1 , t0...j )
Solved efficiently with “dynamic programming” • Global (Needleman-Wunsch 1970) • Local (Smith-Waterman 1981) • Under specific models and scoring schemes • Similarity matrix + linear or affine gap penalty (Gotoh 1982) Summary
are very costly, then we would expect the optimal alignment lie mostly on a diagonal • In banded Smith-Waterman, we ignore cells more than a certain distance from the diagonal (set them to zero). Thus, the complexity is reduced from O(n m) to ~O(n k) where k is the width of the band • (Similar to the microsatellite finding idea)
short regions of very high similarity or identity • Heuristic: rather that considering all possible alignments, consider only those that pass through or near short regions of high similarity
keep only those over threshold. Attempt to join nearby diagonals 2) Extend (ungapped) until score drops by a certain amount over best seen, keep best if score over threshold
along the diagonals that score over the required threshold 3) From the center of every HSP, perform a Smith- Waterman style alignment, stopping when the score drops over a certain amount
• For DNA, these are exact matches • For Proteins, mismatches are allowed up front as long as the score is over some threshold 2.Extend exact matches without allowing gaps to form HSPs (can’t be extended more without decreasing score)
• For DNA, these are exact matches • For Proteins, mismatches are allowed up front as long as the score is over some threshold 2.Extend exact matches without allowing gaps to form HSPs (heuristic: extension stops when difference between best score and score after extension is greater than X) 3.Report highest scoring results
two high scoring words on the same diagonal to trigger extension 3.If ungapped extension scores over a certain threshold, do a gapped extension • Like banded alignment, but region is determined by score drop heuristic rather than distance from diagonal
two transitions • Soft and dynamic masking of known repeats, and regions that generate highly repetitive alignments • Chaining: reduce overlapping alignments to a maximal scoring non-overlapping set • Interpolation: realign between best alignments with more sensitive parameters