Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Daniel T. Lavelle

dblp:66/7969 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithms and data structures · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology
protein sequence analysis
0.112010
Globally, unrelated protein sequences appear random · Bioinform. 2010
Algorithms and data structures › computational biology
sequence analysis
0.012010
Globally, unrelated protein sequences appear random · Bioinform. 2010

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

random sequence models · 0.2false discovery rate analysis · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Globally, unrelated protein sequences appear random
abstract
MOTIVATION: To test whether protein folding constraints and secondary structure sequence preferences significantly reduce the space of amino acid words in proteins, we compared the frequencies of four- and five-amino acid word clumps (independent words) in proteins to the frequencies predicted by four random sequence models. RESULTS: While the human proteome has many overrepresented word clumps, these words come from large protein families with biased compositions (e.g. Zn-fingers). In contrast, in a non-redundant sample of Pfam-AB, only 1% of four-amino acid word clumps (4.7% of 5mer words) are 2-fold overrepresented compared with our simplest random model [MC(0)], and 0.1% (4mers) to 0.5% (5mers) are 2-fold overrepresented compared with a window-shuffled random model. Using a false discovery rate q-value analysis, the number of exceptional four- or five-letter words in real proteins is similar to the number found when comparing words from one random model to another. Consensus overrepresented words are not enriched in conserved regions of proteins, but four-letter words are enriched 1.18- to 1.56-fold in alpha-helical secondary structures (but not beta-strands). Five-residue consensus exceptional words are enriched for alpha-helix 1.43- to 1.61-fold. Protein word preferences in regular secondary structure do not appear to significantly restrict the use of sequence words in unrelated proteins, although the consensus exceptional words have a secondary structure bias for alpha-helix. Globally, words in protein sequences appear to be under very few constraints; for the most part, they appear to be random. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Daniel T. Lavelle, William R. Pearson
Bioinform.1