1 / 18

Protein Family Classification using Sparse Markov Transducers

Protein Family Classification using Sparse Markov Transducers. Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB2000) , pp. 134-145 E. Eskin, W.N. Grundy, and Y. Singer Cho, Dong-Yeon. Abstract.

noleta
Download Presentation

Protein Family Classification using Sparse Markov Transducers

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. Protein Family Classification using Sparse Markov Transducers Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB2000), pp. 134-145 E. Eskin, W.N. Grundy, and Y. Singer Cho, Dong-Yeon

  2. Abstract • Classifying proteins into families using sparse Markov transducers (SMTs) • Estimation of a probability distribution conditioned on an input sequence • Similar to probability suffix trees • Allowing for wild-cards • Two models • Efficient data structures

  3. Introduction • Protein Classification • Pairwise similarity • Creating profiles for protein families • Consensus patterns using motifs • HMM-based approaches • Probability suffix trees (PSTs) • A PST is a model that predicts the next symbol in a sequence based on the previous symbols. • This approach is based on the presence of common short sequences (motifs) through the protein family. • One drawback of PSTs is that they rely on exact matches to the conditional sequences (e.g., 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase). VAVIGSGT VGVLGLGT V*V*G*GT – wild cards

  4. Sparse Markov Transducers (SMTs) • A generalization of PSTs • It can condition the probability model over a sequence that contains wild-cards. • In a transducer, the input symbol alphabet and output symbol alphabet can be different. • Two methods • Single amino acid • Protein family • Efficient data structure • Experiments • Pfam database of protein family

  5. Sparse Markov Transducers • A Markov Transducer of Order L • Conditional probability distribution • Xk are random variables over an input alphabet • Yk is a random variable over an output alphabet • Sparse Markov Transducer • Conditional probability distribution • : wild card • Two approaches for SMT-based protein classification • A prediction model for each family: single amino acid • A single model for the entire database: protein family

  6. Sparse Markov Trees • Representationally equivalent to SMTs • The topology of a tree encodes the positions of the wild-cards in the conditioning sequence of the probability distribution.

  7. Training a Prediction Tree • A set of training examples • The input symbols are used to identify which leaf node is associated with that training example. • The output symbol is then used to update the count of the appropriate predictor. • The predictor kept counts of each output symbol seen by that predictor. • We smooth each count by adding a constant value to the count of each output symbol. Cf) Dirichlet distribution u1 DACDADDDCAA, C CAAAACAD, D AACCAAA, ? C0.5, D0.5

  8. Mixture of Sparse Prediction Trees • We do not know which tree topology can best estimate the distribution. • A mixture technique employs a weight sum of trees as a predictor. • Updating the weight of each tree for each input string in the data set based on how well the tree preformed on predicting the output • The prior probability of a tree is defined by the topology of the tree.

  9. Implementation of SMTs • Two important parameters • MAX_DEPTH: the maximum depth of the tree • MAX_PHI: the maximum number of wild-cards at every node Ten tress in the mixture if MAX_DEPTH=2 and MAX_PHI = 1

  10. Template tree • We only store these nodes which are reached during training. AA, AC and CD

  11. Efficient Data Structures • Performance of the SMT typically improves with higher MAX_PHI and MAX_DEPTH. • The memory usage become bottleneck because it restricts these parameters to values that will allow the tree to fit in memory.

  12. Lazy Evaluation • We store the tails of the training sequence and recompute the part of the tree on demand when necessary. • EXPAND_SEQUENCE_COUNT = 4 ACDACAC(D) ACDACAC(A), DACADAC(C), DACAAAC(D), ACACDAC(A), ADCADAC(D)

  13. Methodology • Data • Two versions of the Pfam database • Version 1.0: for comparing results to previous one • Version 5.2: the latest version • 175 protein families • A total of 15610 single domain protein sequences containing a total 3560959 residues • Training and test data with a ratio of 4:1 for each family • transmembranereceptor: 530 protein sequence (424 + 106) • The 424 sequences of the training set give 108858 subsequences that are used to train the model.

  14. Building SMT Prediction Models • A prediction model for each protein family • A sliding window of size 11 • Prediction of the middle symbol a6 using neighboring symbols • The input symbols are a5a7a4a8a3a9a2a10a1a11. • MAX_DEPTH = 7 and MAX_PHI = 1 • Classification of a Sequence using a SMT Prediction Model • Computation of the likelihood for an unknown sequence • A sequence is classified into a family by computing the likelihood of the fit for each of the 175 models.

  15. Building the SMT Classifier Model • Estimation of the probability over protein families given a sequence of amino acids • Input sequence: an amino acid sequence from a protein family • Output symbol: the protein family name • A sliding window of 10 amino acids: a1,…,a10 • MAX_DEPTH=5 and MAX_PHI=1 • Classification of a Sequence using an SMT Classifier • Each position of the sequence gives us a probability over the 175 families measuring how likely the substring originated from each family.

  16. Results • Time-Space-Performance tradeoffs

  17. Results of Protein Classification using SMTs • The SMT models outperform the PST models. • SMT Classifier > SMT Prediction > PST Prediction

  18. Discussion • Sparse Markov Transducers (SMTs) • We have presented two methods for protein classification using sparse Markov transducers (SMTs). • Future Work • Incorporating biological information into the model such as Dirichlet mixture priors • Combining a generative and discriminative model • Using both positive and negative examples in training

More Related