Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 20, 2026

A Practical Guide to Phylogenetics for Nonexperts
Published on: February 5, 2014
Benchmarking the next generation of homology inference tools
Ganapathi Varma Saripella1, Erik L L Sonnhammer1, Kristoffer Forslund2
1Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm Bioinformatics Center, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-10691, Sweden.
Motivation:
Over the last decades, vast numbers of sequences were deposited in public databases. Bioinformatics tools allow homology and consequently functional inference for these sequences. New profile-based homology search tools have been introduced, allowing reliable detection of remote homologs, but have not been systematically benchmarked. To provide such a comparison, which can guide bioinformatics workflows, we extend and apply our previously developed benchmark approach to evaluate the 'next generation' of profile-based approaches, including CS-BLAST, HHSEARCH and PHMMER, in comparison with the non-profile based search tools NCBI-BLAST, USEARCH, UBLAST and FASTA.
Method:
We generated challenging benchmark datasets based on protein domain architectures within either the PFAM + Clan, SCOP/Superfamily or CATH/Gene3D domain definition schemes. From each dataset, homologous and non-homologous protein pairs were aligned using each tool, and standard performance metrics calculated. We further measured congruence of domain architecture assignments in the three domain databases.
Results:
CSBLAST and PHMMER had overall highest accuracy. FASTA, UBLAST and USEARCH showed large trade-offs of accuracy for speed optimization.
Conclusion:
Profile methods are superior at inferring remote homologs but the difference in accuracy between methods is relatively small. PHMMER and CSBLAST stand out with the highest accuracy, yet still at a reasonable computational cost. Additionally, we show that less than 0.1% of Swiss-Prot protein pairs considered homologous by one database are considered non-homologous by another, implying that these classifications represent equivalent underlying biological phenomena, differing mostly in coverage and granularity.
Availability And Implementation:
Benchmark datasets and all scripts are placed at (http://sonnhammer.org/download/Homology_benchmark).
Contact:
forslund@embl.de
Supplementary Information:
Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
More Related Videos
04:58Author Spotlight: Investigating the Role of Repetitive DNA Misregulation in Cancer Initiation and Immunotherapy Resistance
Published on: December 13, 2024
16:02Demonstration of the Sequence Alignment to Predict Across Species Susceptibility Tool for Rapid Assessment of Protein Conservation
Published on: February 10, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons
Next-generation Sequencing
Next-Generation Sequencing Methods
Although all next-generation methods use different technologies, they all share a set of standard features....
Applications of Molecular Taxonomy
Comparing Mitochondrial, Chloroplast, and Prokaryotic Genomes
Modern Molecular Taxonomy
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
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%...