WAS IT A MATch I SAW? Approximate palindromes lead to overstated false match rates in benchmarks using reversed...

Software for labeling biological sequences typically produces a theory-based statistic for each match (the E-value) that indicates the likelihood of seeing that match's score by chance. E-values accurately predict false match rate for comparisons of random (shuffled) sequences, and thus provide a reasoned mechanism for setting score thresholds that enable high sensitivity with low expected false match rate. This threshold-setting strategy is challenged by real biological sequences, which contain regions of local repetition and low sequence complexity that cause excess matches between non-homologous sequences. Knowing this, tool developers often develop benchmarks that use realistic-seeming decoy sequences to explore empirical tradeoffs between sensitivity and false match rate. A recent trend has been to employ reversed biological sequences as realistic decoys, because these preserve the distribution of letters and the existence of local repeats, while disrupting the original sequence's functional properties. However, we and others have observed that sequences appear to produce high scoring alignments to their reversals with surprising frequency, leading to overstatement of false match risk that may negatively affect downstream analysis.

We demonstrate that an alignment between a sequence S and its (possibly mutated) reversal tends to produce higher scores than alignment between truly unrelated sequences, even when S is a shuffled string with no notable repetitive or low-complexity regions. This phenomenon is due to the unintuitive fact that (even randomly shuffled) sequences contain palindromes that are on average longer than the longest common substrings (LCS) shared between permuted variants of the same sequence. Though the expected palindrome length is only slightly larger than the expected LCS, the distribution of alignment scores involving reversed sequences is strongly right-shifted, leading to greatly increased frequency of high-scoring alignments to reversed sequences.

Overestimates of false match risk can motivate unnecessarily high score thresholds, leading to potentially reduced true match sensitivity. Also, when tool sensitivity is only reported up to the score of the first matched decoy sequence, a large decoy set consisting of reversed sequences can obscure sensitivity differences between tools. As a result of these observations, we advise that reversed biological sequences be used as decoys only when care is taken to remove positive matches in the original (un-reversed) sequences, or when overstatement of false labeling is not a concern. Though the primary focus of the analysis is on sequence annotation, we also demonstrate that the prevalence of internal palindromes may lead to an overstatement of the rate of false labels in protein identification with mass spectrometry.