xHMMER3x2: Utilizing HMMER3’s speed and HMMER2’s sensitivity and specificity in the glocal alignment mode for improved large-scale protein domain annotation

Abstract

BackgroundWhile the local-mode HMMER3 is notable for its massive speed improvement, the slower glocal-mode HMMER2 is more exact for domain annotation by enforcing full domain-to-sequence alignments. Since a unit of domain necessarily implies a unit of function, local-mode HMMER3 alone remains insufficient for precise function annotation tasks. In addition, the incomparable E-values for the same domain model by different HMMER builds create difficulty when checking for domain annotation consistency on a large-scale basis.ResultsIn this work, both the speed of HMMER3 and glocal-mode alignment of HMMER2 are combined within the xHMMER3x2 framework for tackling the large-scale domain annotation task. Briefly, HMMER3 is utilized for initial domain detection so that HMMER2 can subsequently perform the glocal-mode, sequence-to-full-domain alignments for the detected HMMER3 hits. An E-value calibration procedure is required to ensure that the search space by HMMER2 is sufficiently replicated by HMMER3. We find that the latter is straightforwardly possible for ~80% of the models in the Pfam domain library (release 29). However in the case of the remaining ~20% of HMMER3 domain models, the respective HMMER2 counterparts are more sensitive. Thus, HMMER3 searches alone are insufficient to ensure sensitivity and a HMMER2-based search needs to be initiated. When tested on the set of UniProt human sequences, xHMMER3x2 can be configured to be between 7× and 201× faster than HMMER2, but with descending domain detection sensitivity from 99.8 to 95.7% with respect to HMMER2 alone; HMMER3’s sensitivity was 95.7%. At extremes, xHMMER3x2 is either the slow glocal-mode HMMER2 or the fast HMMER3 with glocal-mode. Finally, the E-values to false-positive rates (FPR) mapping by xHMMER3x2 allows E-values of different model builds to be compared, so that any annotation discrepancies in a large-scale annotation exercise can be flagged for further examination by dissectHMMER.ConclusionThe xHMMER3x2 workflow allows large-scale domain annotation speed to be drastically improved over HMMER2 without compromising for domain-detection with regard to sensitivity and sequence-to-domain alignment incompleteness. The xHMMER3x2 code and its webserver (for Pfam release 27, 28 and 29) are freely available at http://xhmmer3x2.bii.a-star.edu.sg/.ReviewersReviewed by Thomas Dandekar, L. Aravind, Oliviero Carugo and Shamil Sunyaev. For the full reviews, please go to the Reviewers’ comments section.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13062-016-0163-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Identification of bZIP transcription factors and their responses to brown spot in pear

“…org) and the Phytozome Genome Data Resource Library (https:// genome.jgi.doe.gov/portal). The first batch of candidate genes containing PF00170 and PF07716 domains was identified (E-value=e -10 ) using HMMER v.3.2 (Yap et al, 2016).…”

MYB1R1 and MYC2 Regulate ω-3 Fatty Acid Desaturase Involved in ABA-Mediated Suberization in the Russet Skin of a Mutant of ‘Dangshansuli’ (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)

“…The PF00487 domain model files of PbFAD family members were downloaded from the PFAM website ( https://www.pfam.org ). The candidate genes containing PF00487 domains were identified (E-value=e −10 ) using HMMER v.3.2 (Yap et al, 2016 ). The FAD protein sequences of white pear and Arabidopsis were extracted and aligned.…”

“…MAFFT used default parameters to align the multiple homologous FAD genes. A phylogenetic tree was constructed using the maximum likelihood method [(bootstraps = 1,000) and IQ-TREE 1.6.9 sofware (Yap et al, 2016 )].…”

Comprehensive off-target analysis of dCas9-SAM-mediated HIV reactivation via long noncoding RNA and mRNA profiling

“…To finally determine if a transcript is a lncRNA, four popular methods for coding potential analysis were applied: (1) CPC (Coding-Potential Calculator) [ 64 ] computes the coding potential of a transcript by matching it to the NCBI nr database using BLASTX and scoring it using a support vector machine, (2) CNCI (Coding-Non-Coding Index) distinguishes protein-coding and noncoding transcripts independent of known annotations and predicts the coding or noncoding potential based solely on the features of nucleotide triplets, (3) transcripts were translated into proteins and matched to known protein domains in Pfam [ 65 ] using HMMER3 [ 66 ] where a matched sequence is considered as having coding potential, whereas others are considered as noncoding, and (4) PhyloCSF (Phylogenetic Codon Substitution Frequency) uses genome-wide mammalian sequence alignments to calculate the coding potential of transcripts.…”