On the Analysis of Optical Mapping Data - University of Wisconsin ...
On the Analysis of Optical Mapping Data - University of Wisconsin ...
On the Analysis of Optical Mapping Data - University of Wisconsin ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
14<br />
Significance: An optimal alignment exists in any map comparison problem, irrespective<br />
<strong>of</strong> any actual association. In order to minimize <strong>the</strong> potential effects <strong>of</strong> misaligned maps, it is<br />
essential to limit alignments by some additional criterion. This is <strong>the</strong> problem <strong>of</strong> assessing<br />
<strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> a given alignment. The significance problem in optical map alignment<br />
is more difficult than in sequence alignment, because <strong>of</strong> a greater degree <strong>of</strong> noise and also<br />
because <strong>of</strong> differences in <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> data. We find deficiencies in <strong>the</strong> current state <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> art, and in Chapter 3 we introduce and evaluate an alternative approach to measuring<br />
<strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> optical map alignments. Here, we give a general overview <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mechanics<br />
<strong>of</strong> map alignment.<br />
Notation: We restrict our attention to pairwise alignments, i.e. those between two restriction<br />
maps. Let x = (x 1 , . . .,x m ) and y = (y 1 , . . .,y n ) denote two restriction maps with<br />
m and n fragments respectively. Let <strong>the</strong> corresponding representations in terms <strong>of</strong> cut sites<br />
be S(x) = {s 0 < s 1 < · · · < s m } and S(y) = {t 0 < t 1 < · · · < t n }. An alignment between x<br />
and y can be represented by an ordered set <strong>of</strong> index pairs<br />
C = (( i 1<br />
j1<br />
)<br />
,<br />
( i2<br />
j2<br />
)<br />
, . . .,<br />
( ik<br />
jk<br />
))<br />
indicating a correspondence between <strong>the</strong> cut sites s il and t jl for l = 1, . . .,k, where 0 < i 1 <<br />
· · · < i k < m and 0 < j 1 < · · · < j k < n. To allow missing fragments in <strong>the</strong> alignment, this<br />
last condition can be modified to allow successive indices to be equal, as long as successive<br />
index pairs are not identical. For non-trivial alignments k ≥ 2, in which case <strong>the</strong> alignment<br />
consists <strong>of</strong> k −1 aligned chunks. The l th chunk (l = 1, . . ., k −1) has lengths ˜x l = s il −s il−1 ,<br />
and ỹ l = t jl − t jl−1 involving m l = i l − i l−1 and n l = j l − j l−1 fragments respectively in<br />
<strong>the</strong> original maps x and y. To be used successfully in a dynamic programming algorithm, a<br />
score function must be additive, in <strong>the</strong> sense that <strong>the</strong> score <strong>of</strong> a complete alignment must be<br />
<strong>the</strong> sum <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scores for its component chunks.