MOTIVATION: Current high-throughput sequencing has greatly transformed genome sequence analysis. In the context of very low-coverage sequencing (<0.1×), performing 'binning' or 'windowing' on mapped short sequences ('reads') is critical to extract genomic information of interest for further evaluation, such as copy-number alteration analysis. If the window size is too small, many windows will exhibit zero counts and almost no pattern can be observed. In contrast, if the window size is too wide, the patterns or genomic features will be 'smoothed out'. Our objective is to identify an optimal window size in between the two extremes. RESULTS: We assume the reads density to be a step function. Given this model, we propose a data-based estimation of optimal window size based on Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and cross-validation (CV) log-likelihood. By plotting the AIC and CV log-likelihood curve as a function of window size, we are able to estimate the optimal window size that minimizes AIC or maximizes CV log-likelihood. The proposed methods are of general purpose and we illustrate their application using low-coverage next-generation sequence datasets from real tumour samples and simulated datasets. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: An R package to estimate optimal window size is available at http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/∼arief/R/win/.

MOTIVATION: The large-scale comparison of protein-ligand binding sites is problematic, in that measures of structural similarity are difficult to quantify and are not easily understood in terms of statistical similarity that can ultimately be related to structure and function. We present a binding site matching score the Poisson Index (PI) based upon a well-defined statistical model. PI requires only the number of matching atoms between two sites and the size of the two sites-the same information used by the Tanimoto Index (TI), a comparable and widely used measure for molecular similarity. We apply PI and TI to a previously automatically extracted set of binding sites to determine the robustness and usefulness of both scores. RESULTS: We found that PI outperforms TI; moreover, site similarity is poorly defined for TI at values around the 99.5% confidence level for which PI is well defined. A difference map at this confidence level shows that PI gives much more meaningful information than TI. We show individual examples where TI fails to distinguish either a false or a true site paring in contrast to PI, which performs much better. TI cannot handle large or small sites very well, or the comparison of large and small sites, in contrast to PI that is shown to be much more robust. Despite the difficulty of determining a biological 'ground truth' for binding site similarity we conclude that PI is a suitable measure of binding site similarity and could form the basis for a binding site classification scheme comparable to existing protein domain classification schema.