SeqDoC: rapid SNP and mutation detection by direct comparison of DNA sequence chromatograms

Background: This paper describes SeqDoC, a simple, web-based tool to carry out direct comparison of ABI sequence chromatograms. This allows the rapid identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and point mutations without the need to install or learn more complicated analysis software. Results: SeqDoC produces a subtracted trace showing differences between a reference and test chromatogram, and is optimised to emphasise those characteristic of single base changes. It automatically aligns sequences, and produces straightforward graphical output. The use of direct comparison of the sequence chromatograms means that artefacts introduced by automatic base-calling software are avoided. Homozygous and heterozygous substitutions and insertion/deletion events are all readily identified. SeqDoC successfully highlights nucleotide changes missed by the Staden package 'tracediff' program. Conclusion: SeqDoC is ideal for small-scale SNP identification, for identification of changes in random mutagenesis screens, and for verification of PCR amplification fidelity. Differences are highlighted, not interpreted, allowing the investigator to make the ultimate decision on the nature of the change.

Evaluation and comparison of mammalian subcellular localization prediction methods

Background: Determination of the subcellular location of a protein is essential to understanding its biochemical function. This information can provide insight into the function of hypothetical or novel proteins. These data are difficult to obtain experimentally but have become especially important since many whole genome sequencing projects have been finished and many resulting protein sequences are still lacking detailed functional information. In order to address this paucity of data, many computational prediction methods have been developed. However, these methods have varying levels of accuracy and perform differently based on the sequences that are presented to the underlying algorithm. It is therefore useful to compare these methods and monitor their performance. Results: In order to perform a comprehensive survey of prediction methods, we selected only methods that accepted large batches of protein sequences, were publicly available, and were able to predict localization to at least nine of the major subcellular locations (nucleus, cytosol, mitochondrion, extracellular region, plasma membrane, Golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum (ER), peroxisome, and lysosome). The selected methods were CELLO, MultiLoc, Proteome Analyst, pTarget and WoLF PSORT. These methods were evaluated using 3763 mouse proteins from SwissProt that represent the source of the training sets used in development of the individual methods. In addition, an independent evaluation set of 2145 mouse proteins from LOCATE with a bias towards the subcellular localization underrepresented in SwissProt was used. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each method and compared to a theoretical value based on what might be observed by random chance. Conclusion: No individual method had a sufficient level of sensitivity across both evaluation sets that would enable reliable application to hypothetical proteins. All methods showed lower performance on the LOCATE dataset and variable performance on individual subcellular localizations was observed. Proteins localized to the secretory pathway were the most difficult to predict, while nuclear and extracellular proteins were predicted with the highest sensitivity.