1 / 42

Sparse Normalized Local Alignment Nadav Efraty Gad M. Landau

Sparse Normalized Local Alignment Nadav Efraty Gad M. Landau. Goal. To find the substrings, X’ and Y’ , whose normalized alignment value LCS(X’,Y’)/(|X’|+|Y’|) is the highest, Or higher than a predefined similarity level. Introduction

eryk
Download Presentation

Sparse Normalized Local Alignment Nadav Efraty Gad M. Landau

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sparse Normalized Local AlignmentNadav EfratyGad M. Landau

  2. Goal To find the substrings, X’ and Y’, whose normalized alignment value LCS(X’,Y’)/(|X’|+|Y’|) is the highest, Or higher than a predefined similarity level.

  3. Introduction • The O(rLloglogn) normalized local LCS algorithm • The O(rMloglogn) normalized local LCS algorithm • Conclusions and open problems

  4. Introduction

  5. Background - Global similarity LCS-. computing a dynamic programming table of size (n+1)x(m+1) : T(i,0)=T(0,j)=0 for all i,j (1 ≤ i ≤ m ; 1 ≤ j ≤ n) if Xj=Yi then T(i,j)=T(i-1,j-1)+1, else, T(i,j)=max{T(i-1,j) , T(i,j-1)}

  6. Background - Global similarity The naive LCS algorithm Xj=Yi T(i,j)=T(i-1,j-1)+1 Xj≠Yi T(i,j)=max{T(i,j-1),T(i-1,j)}

  7. Background - Global similarity The typical staircase shape of the layers in the matrix

  8. Background - Global similarity Edit distance measures the minimal number of operations that are required to transform one string into another one. operations: • substitution • Deletion • insertion.

  9. Background - Local similarity The Smith Waterman algorithm (1981) T(i,0)=T(0,j)=0 , for all i,j (1 ≤ i ≤ m ; 1 ≤ j ≤ n) T(i,j)=max{T(i-1,j-1)+ S(Yi,Xj) , T(i-1,j)+ D(Yi) , T(i,j-1)+ I(Xj) , 0}

  10. 40 -30 32 10 42 40 40/100 70/10000 Background - Local similarity The weaknesses of the Smith Waterman algorithm: • Mosaic effect - Lack of ability to discard poorly conserved intermediate segments. • Shadow effect – Short, but more biologically important alignments may not be detected because they are overlapped by longer (and less important) alignments. • The sparsity of the essential data is not exploited.

  11. The solution: Normalization The statistical significance of the local alignment depends on both its score and length. Instead of searching for an alignment that maximizes the score S(X,Y), search for the alignment that maximizes S(X,Y)/(|X|+|Y|).

  12. Arslan, Egecioglu, Pevzner (2001) uses a mathematical technique that allows convergence to the optimal alignment value through iterations of the Smith Waterman algorithm. SCORE(X’,Y’)/(|X’|+|Y’|+L), where L is a constant that controls the amount of normalization. O(n2logn).

  13. Our approach • The degree of similarity is defined as LCS(X’,Y’)/(|X’|+|Y’|). • M - a minimal length constraint. • Similarity level.

  14. The O(rLloglogn) normalized local LCS algorithm

  15. X 0 n 0 Y X 0 J J’ n 0 (i,j) i m Y (i’,j’) i’ m Definitions • A chain is a sequence of matches that is strictly increasing in both components. • The length of a chain from match (i,j) to match (i’,j’) is i’-i+j’-j, that is, the length of the substrings which create the chain. • A k-chain(i,j) is the shortest chain of k matches starting from (i,j). • The normalized value of k-chain(i,j) is k divided by its length.

  16. The algorithm • For each match (a,b), construct k-chain(a,b) for 1≤k≤L (L=LCS(X,Y)). • Examine all the k-chains with k≥M, starting from each match, and report either: • The k-chains with the highest normalized value. • k-chains whose normalized value exceed a predefined threshold.

  17. a b c a d e c f h c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 g 1 b 2 3 f h 4 5 e c 6 g 7 g 8 g 9 f 10 d 11 e 12 f 13 • Problem: k-chain(a,b)is not the prefix of (k+1)-chain(a,b).

  18. a b c a d e c f h c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 g 1 b 2 3 f h 4 5 e c 6 g 7 Solution: (k+1)-chain(a,b) : (a,b) is concatenated to a k-chain(i’,j’)below and to the right of (a,b).

  19. Question: How can we find the proper match (i’,j’) which is the head of the k-chain that should be concatenated to (a,b) in order to construct (k+1)-chain(a,b) .

  20. Definitions: Range- The range of a match (i,j) is (0…i-1,0…j-1). Mutual range- An area of the table which is overlapped by at least two ranges of distinct matches. Owner- (i’,j’) is the owner of the range where k-chain(i’,j’) is the suffix of (k+1)-chain(a,b) for any match (a,b) in the range. L separated lists of ranges and their owners are maintained by the algorithm.

  21. X X 0 j j’ n j 0 j’ n 0 0 Y Y i i (i,j’) (i,j) (i,j) i’ i’ (i’,j’) (i’,j) (i’,j’) m m Case 2 Case 1 If (a,b) is in the range of a single match (i’,j’) (it is not in a mutual range),k-chain(i’,j’) would be the suffix of (k+1)-chain(a,b). If (x,y) is in the mutual range of two matches, how can we determined which of them should be concatenated to (a,b)? Lemma: A mutual range of two matches is owned completely by one of them.

  22. Lemma: A mutual range of two matches, p ((i,j)) and q ((i’,j’)), is owned completely by one of them. Proof: There are two distinct cases: Case 1: i≤i’ and j≤j‘; X 0 J J’ n 0 Y i (i,j’) (i,j) i’ (i’,j’) (i’,j) m

  23. X J 0 J’ n 0 Y Lp i (i,j) i’ (i’,j’) Lq m Case 2: i<i‘ and j>j‘; The mutual range of p and q is (0...i-1,0...j'-1). Entry (i-1,j'-1) is the mutualpoint (MP) of p and q. p will be the owner of the mutual range if Lp+(j-j') ≤ Lq+(i'-i)

  24. The algorithm • Preprocessing. • Process the matches row by row, from bottom up. For the matches of row i: • Stage 1: Construct k-chains 1≤k≤L for all the matches in the row i, using the L lists of ranges and owners. • Stage 2: Update the lists of ranges and owners with the matches of row i and their k-chains. • Examine the k-chains of all matches and report the ones with the highest normalized value.

  25. Stage 2 • Let LROk be the list of ranges and owners that are the heads of k-chains. • Insert each match (i,j) of row i which is the head of a k-chain to LROk. • If there is already another match with column coordinate j, extract it from LROk. Row 0 Row 0 Row i Row i+1

  26. Stage 2 – cont’ • While for (i',j'), which is the left neighbor of (i,j) in LROk (length of k-chain(i’,j’)+i'-i) ≥ (length of k-chain(i,j)+j-j'), (i',j') should be extracted from LROk. Row 0 Row i

  27. Stage 1 • Constructing (k+1)-chain(i,j):concatenating (i,j) to the match in LROk which is the owner of the range of (i,j). • Record the value of (k+1)-chain(i,j)with the match (i,j). Row 0 Row i

  28. Reporting the best alignments • The best alignment is either the alignment with the highest normalized value or the alignments whose similarity exceed a predefined value. • Check all the k-chains, k≥M, starting from each match and report the best alignments.

  29. Complexity analysis • Preprocessing- O(nlogΣY) • Stage 1- • For each of the r matches we construct at most L k-chains. • Using a Johnson Tree stage 1 is computed in O(rLloglogn) time. • Stage 2- Each of the r matches is inserted and extracted at most once to each of the LROks. Total,O(rLloglogn) time.

  30. Complexity analysis • Reporting the best alignments is done in O(rL) time. • Total time complexity of this algorithm is O(nlogΣY + rLloglogn). • Space complexity is O(rL+nL).

  31. The O(rMloglogn) normalized local LCS algorithm

  32. The O(rMloglogn) normalized local LCS algorithm Reoprts: The normalized alignment value of the best possible local alignment. (value and substrings).

  33. Computing the highest normalized value Definition: A sub-chain of a k-Chain is a path that contains a sequence of x ≤ k consecutive matches of the k-Chain. Claim: When a k-chain is split into a number of non overlapping consecutive sub-chains, the normalized value of a k-chain is smaller or equal than that of its best sub-chain. Result: The normalized value of any k-chain (k≥M) is smaller or equal than the value of its best sub-chain with M to 2M-1 matches.

  34. Computing the highest normalized value • A sub-chains of less than M matches may not be reported. • Sub-chains of 2M matches or more, can be split into shorter sub-chains of M to 2M-1 matches. • Is it sufficient to construct all the sub-chains of exactly M matches? • No - Sub-chains of M+1 to 2M-1 matches can not be split to sub-chains of M matches.

  35. Computing the highest normalized value The algorithm: For each match construct all the k-chains, for k≤2M-1. • The algorithm constructs all these chains, that are, in fact, the sub-chains of all the longer k-chains. • A longer chain can not be better than its best sub-chain. • This algorithm is able to report the highest normalized value of a sub-chain (of at least M matches) which is equal to the highest normalized value of a chain of at least M matches.

  36. Constructing the longest optimal alignment Definition: A perfect alignment is an alignment of two identical strings. Its normalized value is ½ Unless the optimal alignment is perfect, the longest optimal alignment has no more than 2M-1 matches.

  37. 0/3 0/2 10/30 10/30 10/35 = < Assume there is a chain with more than 2M-1matches whose normalized value is the optimal, denoted by LB. Constructing the longest optimal alignment • LB may be split to a number of sub-chains of M matches, followed by a single sub-chain of between M and 2M-1 matches. • The normalized value of each such sub-chain must be equal to that of LB, otherwise, LB is not optimal. • Each such sub-chain must start and end at a match, otherwise, the normalized value of the chain comprised of the same matches will be higher than that of LB.

  38. Constructing the longest optimal alignment • Note that if we concatenate two optimal sub-chains where the head of the second is next to the tail of the first the concatenated chain is optimal. • when the head of the second is not next to the tail of the first, the concatenated chain is not optimal. 10/30 20/60 10/30 10/30 0/2 10/30 20/62 • The tails and heads of the sub-chains from which LB is comprised must be next to each other.

  39. Constructing the longest optimal alignment • If the tails and heads of the optimal sub-chains from which LB is comprised are next to each other then their concatenation (i.e. LB) is optimal. Lets examine the first two sub-chains: • But, what happens if we examine the following sub-chain: M/L 2M/2L M/L M/L M/L It’s number of matches is M+1 and its length is L+2. • Since M/L<½, (M+1)/(L+2)>M/L. Thus, we found a chain of M+1 matches whose normalized value is higher than that of LB, in contradiction to the optimality of LB.

  40. Closingremarks

  41. The advantages of the new algorithm • The first algorithm to combine the “normalized local” and the “sparse”. • Ideal for textual local comparison (where the sparsity is typically dramatic) as well as for screening bio sequences. • As a normalized alignment algorithm, it does not suffer form the weaknesses from which non normalized algorithms suffer. • A straight forward approach to the minimal constraint which is easy to control and understand, and in the same time, does not require reformulation of the original problem. • the minimal constraint is problem related rather than input related.

  42. The end

More Related