↓ Skip to main content

Query-Dependent Banding (QDB) for Faster RNA Similarity Searches

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, March 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
261 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Query-Dependent Banding (QDB) for Faster RNA Similarity Searches
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, March 2007
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric P Nawrocki, Sean R Eddy

Abstract

When searching sequence databases for RNAs, it is desirable to score both primary sequence and RNA secondary structure similarity. Covariance models (CMs) are probabilistic models well-suited for RNA similarity search applications. However, the computational complexity of CM dynamic programming alignment algorithms has limited their practical application. Here we describe an acceleration method called query-dependent banding (QDB), which uses the probabilistic query CM to precalculate regions of the dynamic programming lattice that have negligible probability, independently of the target database. We have implemented QDB in the freely available Infernal software package. QDB reduces the average case time complexity of CM alignment from LN(2.4) to LN(1.3) for a query RNA of N residues and a target database of L residues, resulting in a 4-fold speedup for typical RNA queries. Combined with other improvements to Infernal, including informative mixture Dirichlet priors on model parameters, benchmarks also show increased sensitivity and specificity resulting from improved parameterization.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Brazil 2 2%
Portugal 2 2%
Mexico 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 98 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 10%
Student > Master 9 8%
Professor 5 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 12 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 50%
Computer Science 16 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 9%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Mathematics 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 19 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2008.
All research outputs
#8,616,072
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#5,665
of 9,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,537
of 91,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#20
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 91,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.