Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

DNA multiple sequence alignments.

Gonzalo Giribet1, Ward C Wheeler, Jyrki Muona

  • 1Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

EXS
|April 2, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Searching for Phylogenetic Networks.

Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)·2026
Same author

An inordinate fondness for Zalmoxis: explosive evolution of Zalmoxidae (Arachnida, Opiliones) goes undetected in Kanaky | New Caledonia.

Invertebrate systematics·2026
Same author

Unpouching Peracarida relationships with ultraconserved elements.

Molecular phylogenetics and evolution·2025
Same author

Genomic species delimitation reveals sympatry in Tasmanian egg-laying velvet worms (Onychophora: Peripatopsidae: Ooperipatellus Ruhberg, 1985).

Invertebrate systematics·2025
Same author

Genitalic morphology and phylogenomic placement of the Australian spider Paraplectanoides crassipes Keyserling, 1886 (Araneae, Araneidae) with a discussion on the classification of the family Araneidae.

Invertebrate systematics·2025
Same author

Covering All Bases: A Universal Metazoan UCE Probe Set to Democratize Phylogenomics.

Genome biology and evolution·2025
Same journal

Forensic toxicology.

EXS·2010
Same journal

Biological warfare agents.

EXS·2010
Same journal

Chemical warfare agents.

EXS·2010
Same journal

Drugs of abuse: management of intoxication and antidotes.

EXS·2010
Same journal

Biological testing for drugs of abuse.

EXS·2010
Same journal

Inhalation toxicology.

EXS·2010
See all related articles

This chapter explores multiple sequence alignment methods, highlighting heuristic procedures and sources of ambiguity. Human alignment experiments reveal the inherent challenges and suggest using alignment parameters to assess sensitivity.

Area of Science:

  • Bioinformatics
  • Computational Biology
  • Genomics

Background:

  • Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) is fundamental in bioinformatics for comparing and analyzing biological sequences.
  • Heuristic methods are widely used for MSA due to the computational complexity of exact algorithms.
  • Understanding ambiguity in MSA is crucial for accurate biological interpretation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine heuristic procedures in multiple sequence alignment.
  • To identify and analyze sources of ambiguity within the alignment process.
  • To propose methods for evaluating alignment sensitivity and explore human alignment ambiguity.

Main Methods:

  • Review of common heuristic algorithms for multiple sequence alignment.
  • Analysis of factors contributing to ambiguity in sequence alignment.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Proposal of alignment parameters for sensitivity analysis.
  • Conducting an experiment involving human subjects performing manual sequence alignment.

    • Main Results:

    • Heuristic methods, while efficient, introduce ambiguities in multiple sequence alignment.
    • Several factors contribute to the ambiguity of the alignment procedure.
    • Alignment sensitivity can be effectively examined using specific alignment parameters.
    • Human manual alignment also exhibits significant ambiguity, comparable to computational methods.

    Conclusions:

    • Multiple sequence alignment is prone to ambiguity, influenced by both computational heuristics and human interpretation.
    • Employing multiple alignment parameters is recommended for a robust assessment of alignment sensitivity.
    • The study underscores the need for caution and validation when interpreting results from both automated and manual sequence alignments.