Modeling the evolution of regulatory elements by simultaneous detection and alignment with phylogenetic pair HMMs.

The computational detection of regulatory elements in DNA is a difficult but important problem impacting our progress in understanding the complex nature of eukaryotic gene regulation. Attempts to utilize cross-species conservation for this task have been hampered both by evolutionary changes of functional sites and poor performance of general-purpose alignment programs when applied to non-coding sequence. We describe a new and flexible framework for modeling binding site evolution in multiple related genomes, based on phylogenetic pair hidden Markov models which explicitly model the gain and loss of binding sites along a phylogeny. We demonstrate the value of this framework for both the alignment of regulatory regions and the inference of precise binding-site locations within those regions. As the underlying formalism is a stochastic, generative model, it can also be used to simulate the evolution of regulatory elements. Our implementation is scalable in terms of numbers of species and sequence lengths and can produce alignments and binding-site predictions with accuracy rivaling or exceeding current systems that specialize in only alignment or only binding-site prediction. We demonstrate the validity and power of various model components on extensive simulations of realistic sequence data and apply a specific model to study Drosophila enhancers in as many as ten related genomes and in the presence of gain and loss of binding sites. Different models and modeling assumptions can be easily specified, thus providing an invaluable tool for the exploration of biological hypotheses that can drive improvements in our understanding of the mechanisms and evolution of gene regulation.

Comparison of extramedullary versus intramedullary referencing for tibial component alignment in total ankle arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The majority of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) systems use extramedullary alignment guides for tibial component placement. However, at least 1 system offers intramedullary referencing. In total knee arthroplasty, studies suggest that tibial component placement is more accurate with intramedullary referencing. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of extramedullary referencing with intramedullary referencing for tibial component placement in total ankle arthroplasty. METHODS: The coronal and sagittal tibial component alignment was evaluated on the postoperative weight-bearing anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of 236 consecutive fixed-bearing TAAs. Radiographs were measured blindly by 2 investigators. The postoperative alignment of the prosthesis was compared with the surgeon's intended alignment in both planes. The accuracy of tibial component alignment was compared between the extramedullary and intramedullary referencing techniques using unpaired t tests. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Eighty-three tibial components placed with an extramedullary referencing technique were compared with 153 implants placed with an intramedullary referencing technique. The accuracy of the extramedullary referencing was within a mean of 1.5 ± 1.4 degrees and 4.1 ± 2.9 degrees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. The accuracy of intramedullary referencing was within a mean of 1.4 ± 1.1 degrees and 2.5 ± 1.8 degrees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. There was a significant difference (P < .001) between the 2 techniques with respect to the sagittal plane alignment. Interrater ICCs for coronal and sagittal alignment were high (0.81 and 0.94, respectively). Intrarater ICCs for coronal and sagittal alignment were high for both investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Initial sagittal plane tibial component alignment was notably more accurate when intramedullary referencing was used. Further studies are needed to determine the effect of this difference on clinical outcomes and long-term survivability of the implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.