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 Concept Videos

Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons02:54

Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons

Genome comparison is one of the excellent ways to interpret the evolutionary relationships between organisms. The basic principle of genome comparison is that if two species share a common feature, it is likely encoded by the DNA sequence conserved between both species. The advent of genome sequencing technologies in the late 20th century enabled scientists to understand the concept of conservation of domains between species and helped them to deduce evolutionary relationships across diverse...
Modern Molecular Taxonomy01:29

Modern Molecular Taxonomy

Advancements in molecular biology have revolutionized the identification and characterization of bacteria, with multiple methods leveraging DNA sequencing for enhanced precision. As sequencing technologies improve and costs decline, these approaches are increasingly used in clinical, environmental, and evolutionary studies.Multilocus Sequence Typing (MLST) examines several housekeeping genes, essential chromosomal genes encoding cellular functions, to distinguish strains. Approximately...
Multiple Comparison Tests01:13

Multiple Comparison Tests

Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
Comparing Mitochondrial, Chloroplast, and Prokaryotic Genomes02:16

Comparing Mitochondrial, Chloroplast, and Prokaryotic Genomes

The present-day mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes have retained some of the characteristics of their ancestral prokaryotes and also have acquired new attributes during their evolution within eukaryotic cells. Like prokaryotic genomes, mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes neither bind with histone-like proteins nor show complex packaging into chromosome-like structures, as observed in eukaryotes. Unlike mitotic cell divisions observed in eukaryotic cells, mitochondria and chloroplasts...
Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test for Matched Pairs01:09

Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test for Matched Pairs

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs evaluates the null hypothesis by combining the ranks of differences with their signs. It essentially tests whether the median of the differences in a population of matched pairs is zero. Since the test incorporates more information than the sign test, it generally yields more trustable conclusions. This test also does not require the data to follow a normal distribution, but two conditions must be met for it to be applicable: (1) the data must...
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs02:26

Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs

Sequencing of the human genome has opened up several best-kept secrets of the genome. Scientists have identified thousands of genome variations that exist within a population. These variations can be a single nucleotide or a larger chromosomal variation.
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Partitioning clustering algorithms for protein sequence data sets.

BioData mining·2009
Same author

A comparison of MSA tools.

Bioinformation·2008
Same journal

Assessment of lower incisor position and symphysis dimensions among different skeletal patterns in the Chhattisgarh population.

Bioinformation·2026
Same journal

Low T3 syndrome and short-term outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: A retrospective observational study.

Bioinformation·2026
Same journal

Cardiovascular risk prevention awareness and practices in type 2 diabetes: Linking HbA1c and lipid levels.

Bioinformation·2026
Same journal

Assessment of periodontal condition using basic periodontal examination scores: A retrospective clinical study.

Bioinformation·2026
Same journal

Comparative evaluation of osseointegration among different surface modification techniques in dental implants.

Bioinformation·2026
Same journal

Micro-osteoperforations' impact on orthodontic tooth movement rate: Split mouth research.

Bioinformation·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 1, 2026

A Practical Guide to Phylogenetics for Nonexperts
12:00

A Practical Guide to Phylogenetics for Nonexperts

Published on: February 5, 2014

A comparison of four pair-wise sequence alignment methods.

Nadia Essoussi1, Sondes Fayech

  • 1Department of Computer Science, Higher Institute of Management, Tunis, Tunisia.

Bioinformation
|June 15, 2011
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Heuristic-based methods for protein sequence alignment are faster than dynamic programming approaches. This comparison aids users in selecting appropriate bioinformatics tools for molecular biology research.

Keywords:
BL2SEQLFASTANeedleman & WunschSmith & Watermansequence alignment techniques

More Related Videos

Creating and Applying a Reference to Facilitate the Discussion and Classification of Proteins in a Diverse Group
07:49

Creating and Applying a Reference to Facilitate the Discussion and Classification of Proteins in a Diverse Group

Published on: August 16, 2017

Demonstration of the Sequence Alignment to Predict Across Species Susceptibility Tool for Rapid Assessment of Protein Conservation
16:02

Demonstration of the Sequence Alignment to Predict Across Species Susceptibility Tool for Rapid Assessment of Protein Conservation

Published on: February 10, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 1, 2026

A Practical Guide to Phylogenetics for Nonexperts
12:00

A Practical Guide to Phylogenetics for Nonexperts

Published on: February 5, 2014

Creating and Applying a Reference to Facilitate the Discussion and Classification of Proteins in a Diverse Group
07:49

Creating and Applying a Reference to Facilitate the Discussion and Classification of Proteins in a Diverse Group

Published on: August 16, 2017

Demonstration of the Sequence Alignment to Predict Across Species Susceptibility Tool for Rapid Assessment of Protein Conservation
16:02

Demonstration of the Sequence Alignment to Predict Across Species Susceptibility Tool for Rapid Assessment of Protein Conservation

Published on: February 10, 2023

Area of Science:

  • Bioinformatics
  • Computational Biology
  • Molecular Biology

Background:

  • Protein sequence alignment is crucial in molecular biology.
  • Numerous alignment tools exist, but their selection and interpretation can be challenging for non-experts.
  • Bioinformatics algorithm development requires specialized skills for effective tool utilization.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare dynamic programming (Needleman-Wunsch, Smith-Waterman) and heuristic (LFASTA, BL2SEQ) sequence alignment methods.
  • To provide an educational comparison for users with limited bioinformatics expertise.
  • To analyze alignment speed across different sequence datasets.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized dynamic programming algorithms: Needleman-Wunsch (N-W) and Smith-Waterman (S-W).
  • Employed heuristic algorithms: LFASTA and BL2SEQ.
  • Performed comparative analysis on four distinct sets of protein sequence data.

Main Results:

  • Heuristic-based alignment methods demonstrated superior speed compared to dynamic programming methods.
  • The analysis highlighted performance differences in alignment execution time.
  • Identified practical implications for choosing alignment tools based on speed requirements.

Conclusions:

  • Heuristic methods offer a faster alternative for protein sequence alignment.
  • Understanding the trade-offs between different alignment techniques is essential for efficient bioinformatics workflows.
  • This study provides valuable insights for researchers selecting sequence alignment tools.