Protein Sequence Alignment 1 July 2002- DPJ David Philip Judge.

Protein Sequence Alignment 1 July 2002- DPJ David Philip Judge

SQRGGKTVGYWSTDGYDFNDSKALRNGKFVGLALDEDNQSDLTDDRIKSWVAQLKSEFGL KDRGAKIVGSWSTDGYEFESSEAVVDGKFVGLALDLDNQSGKTDERVAAWLAQIAPEFGL AKQGAKPVGFSNPDDYDYEESKSVRDGKFLGLPLDMVNDQIPMEKRVAGWVEAVVSETGV N Comparing pairs of sequences Objectives: To align two sequences in a biologically logical fashion. To generate a score representing the “quality” of the alignment. Assumption: The sequences being compared are homologous. {so differences between the sequences are exclusively due to evolutionary processes} {Sadly, the computed score has little absolute meaning}

ABEERNALEDLAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFGSTOUTFAWATERM

P 1 0 -3 0 0 -2 -3 -2 -5 6 1 0 -6 -5 0 0 S 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 -3 0 -2 -3 1 2 1 -2 -3 0 0 0 T 1 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 0 -3 0 1 3 -5 -3 0 0 0 W -6 2 -4 -7 -8 -5 -7 -3 -5 -2 -3 -4 0 -6 -2 -5 17 0 -6 -5 -6 0 Y -3 -4 -2 -4 0 -5 0 -4 2 7 -5 -3 0 10 -2 -3 -4 0 V 0 -2 -2 4 2 2 0 -6 -2 4 0 B 0 2 3 -4 1 2 0 1 -2 -3 1 -2 -5 0 0 -5 -3 -2 2 2 0 Z 0 0 1 3 -5 3 3 2 -2 -3 0 -2 -5 0 0 -6 -4 -2 2 3 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A R N D C Q E G H I L K M F P S T W V B Z X Y A 2 0 0 0 0 1 -2 -4 1 1 1 -6 0 0 0 0 -3 N 0 0 2 2 -4 1 1 0 2 -2 -3 1 -2 -4 1 0 -4 -2 2 1 0 D 0 2 4 -5 2 3 1 1 -2 -4 0 -3 -6 0 0 -7 -2 3 3 0 -4 C -2 -4 -5 12 -5 -3 -2 -6 -5 -4 -3 0 -2 -8 -2 -4 -5 0 0 Q 0 1 1 2 4 2 3 -2 1 -5 0 -2 -5 -2 1 3 0 -4 E 0 1 3 -5 2 4 0 1 -2 -3 0 -2 -5 1 0 -7 -2 2 3 0 -4 G 1 -3 0 1 0 5 -2 -3 -4 -2 -3 -5 1 0 -7 0 0 -5 H 2 2 1 -3 3 1 -2 6 0 0 -3 -2 1 2 0 0 I -2 -3 -2 5 2 1 0 -5 4 -2 0 L -2 -3 -4 -6 -2 -3 -4 -2 2 6 4 2 2 -3 -2 2 -3 0 K 3 1 0 -5 1 0 -2 0 -3 5 0 -5 0 0 -3 -2 1 0 0 -4 M 0 -2 -3 -5 -2 -3 -2 2 4 0 6 0 -4 2 -2 0 -5 0 F -4 -6 -4 -5 -2 1 2 -5 0 9 -3 0 7 Dayhoff PAM 250 Matrix R -2 6 0 -4 1 -3 2 -2 -3 3 0 -4 0 0 2 -2 0 0 -4

The PAM matrices are computed from aligned families of proteins. Original protein Aligned current proteins

F F F F F F F F F F Y Y Y Y Y F Y Y Y Y F F Y Y Y Y F Y F Y Y Y F F Original protein Aligned current proteins Y F F Y Original protein Aligned current proteins The High F Y score implies: F -> Y substitutions are common + Y -> F substitutions are common Where F is conserved Where Y is conserved

F F F F F F F F F F Y Y Y Y Y F Y Y Y Y F F Y Y Y Y F Y F Y Y Y F F Original protein Aligned current proteins Y F F Y Original protein Aligned current proteins The High W W score implies: Any substitutions are uncommon Where W is conserved W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

A8.3 C1.7 D5.3 E6.2 F3.9 G7.2 H2.2 I5.2 K5.7 L9.0 M2.4 N4.4 P5.1 Q4.0 R5.7 S6.9 T5.8 V6.6 W1.3 Y3.2 AMINO ACIDS % A8.3 W1.3 Alanine is very commonTryptophan is relatively rare Typical Amino Acid composition { according to Argos and McCaldon}

PAM – Point Accepted Mutation PAM – is a measure of evolutionary distance An evolutionary distance of 1 PAM indicates the probability of a residue mutating during a distance in which 1 point mutation was accepted per 100 residues.

Observed %Evolutionary DifferenceDistance (PAMs) 1 1011 2023 3038 4056 5080 60112 70159 80246 Relationship between Observed difference and PAM value.

The BLOSUM matrices are also computed from aligned families of proteins. Original protein Aligned current proteins The BLOSUM scoring matrices

Regions of high conservation, stored in the BLOCKS database

ABEERNALEDLAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA Insertions/Deletions => GAPS ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFGSTOUTFAWATERM

Insertions/Deletions => GAPS ABEERNALEDLAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFGSTOUTFAWATERM

Insertions/Deletions => GAPS ABEERN-ALEDLAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFGSTOUTFAWATERM

Insertions/Deletions => GAPS ABEERN-ALED-LAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFGSTOUTFAWATERM

Insertions/Deletions => GAPS ABEERN-ALED-LAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFG-STOUTFAWATERM

Insertions/Deletions => GAPS ABEERN-ALED-LAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFG--STOUTFAWATERM

Insertions/Deletions => GAPS ABEERN-ALED-LAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFG---STOUTFAWATERM

Insertions/Deletions => GAPS ABEERN-ALED-LAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFG---STOUTFA-WATERM

Insertions/Deletions => GAPS ABEERN-ALED-LAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAFG---STOUTFA--WATERM

?????? – but adds 12 to the score ABEERN-ALED-LAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAF-G--STOUTFA--WATERM G W = -7 G G = +5 Insertions/Deletions => GAPS

?????? – but adds 12 to the score A-BEERN-ALED-LAGERDFWGALSTOUTWRARWATERA ACBEERGYALEDILAGERAF-G--STOUTFA--WATERM ?????? – but adds 4 to the score G W = -7 G G = +5 A C = -2 A A = +2 Insertions/Deletions => GAPSThe need for penalising GAPs.

LOCAL and GLOBAL implementations of pairwise alignment LOCAL Alignment

LOCAL and GLOBAL implementations of pairwise alignment LOCAL Alignment GCG : bestfit Staden : spin Emboss: water/matcher GLOBAL Alignment GCG : gap Staden : spin Emboss : needle/stretcher

Protein Sequence Alignment 1 July 2002- DPJ David Philip Judge.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Protein Sequence Alignment 1 July 2002- DPJ David Philip Judge."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Protein Sequence Alignment 1 July 2002- DPJ David Philip Judge.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Protein Sequence Alignment 1 July 2002- DPJ David Philip Judge."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback