- 1 Expected learning outcomes
- 2 About this lab
- 3 General Background
- 4 MAFFT Background
- 5 Muscle background
- 6 Getting started
- 7 Exercise 1: basic functions in SeaView
- 8 Exercise 2: comparison of two different alignment programs (MAFFT and MUSCLE) using nucleotide sequences
- 9 Exercise 3: comparison of two different alignment approaches in MAFFT using protein sequences
- 10 Exercise 4: exploring the difference in gap penalties using MUSCLE
- 11 Codon Alignments
- 12 Filtering
- 13 Reference-Based Alignment
- 14 References
Expected learning outcomes
The objective of this activity is to become familiar with the features of multiple alignment and alignment visualization programs. This includes data input and output, basic visualization and editing functions, alignment options, and differences between nucleotide and amino acid alignments. Most importantly, you should be able to run analyses on the cluster and move files to and from the cluster and your local machine. Transferring data between your computer and a remote machine is necessary in all following labs.
About this lab
Software used in this workshop assumes that input data is aligned. If you want to use your own sequencing data during the workshop, you will need to go through the process of multiple sequence alignment (MSA). We focus here on gene sequences, which can be from targeted Sanger data or assembled genomic data. Many contemporary studies use reference-based short read alignment, but at least some of the underlying theory is the same. We do not cover short read alignment, but reference-based alignment resources are provided at the end of the tutorial.
Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) is a crucial first step for most methods of phylogenetic estimation or model-based inference of evolutionary processes. The goal of MSA is to introduce gaps into sequences so that columns of an aligned matrix contain character states that are homologous.
This statement of homology means that if two sequences both have a residue at a position in the alignment, then a residue existed in their most recent common ancestor. This site was inherited by the descendant lineages (possibly with substitutions occurring) down to the present, observed sequences. Note that if two sequences both have gap at a position, this does not mean that their ancestor had no residue at that site - multiple deletion events are possible.
Homology is a historical property that cannot be directly observed. However, homology can be inferred by MSA methods. Generally, a MSA algorithm attempts to produce homologous alignments by scoring many plausible alignments and choosing one with the best score. Aligning two positions that display the same nucleotide (or amino acid) improves the score. Aligning two positions that are not the same decrease the score. How much of a decrease (the cost) depends on what specific substitution is implied. For example, Leucine to Isoleucine substitutions are common and would not cost much. But Cysteine to Glycine changes are rare. Therefore, aligning a Cysteine to a Glycine results in a higher penalty to the score of the alignment. Placing gaps in a sequence is penalized too. Introducing a new gap usually has a higher cost than extending an existing gap. For example, a gap open cost will be -5 while an extension cost -2, to reflect a scientist’s general belief that one longer indel event is more expected than two shorter indel events.
Most default scoring options for alignment programs are designed to balance expectations of getting similar residues in the same column and allowing for gaps. Try scoring the following alignments yourself, do you get the same answers?
As mentioned in lecture, pairwise alignment is analytically tractable (though slow for very long sequences). Multiple sequence alignment presents new challenges: 1) we do not know the evolutionary tree relating the sequences 2) we do not know the states at internal nodes of the tree in the absence of data from the ancestral sequences. Challenge 1 is frequently addressed by the use of a guide tree, but challenge 2 is for most impossible to overcome and it is not clear how the penalty terms should be applied when we align sets of more than two species. Many MSA approaches focus on solving challenge 2 in a computationally efficient way.
One common solution (and the solution used by the software we'll talk about in this lab) is progressive alignment. The general strategy is:
- estimate pairwise distances using pairwise alignment,
- estimate a guide tree from these distances,
- use the guide tree to specify the order in which multiple sequence alignments are constructed. The algorithm proceeds by traversing the tree from leaves to the root. The two descendants of each internal node in the tree are aligned to each other. Thus, the guide tree serves as means of ordering a set of pairwise alignment operations.
- iterate until the alignment cannot be improved based on some criterion
The initial step in the progressive stage will be a pairwise sequence alignment to produce a group of two aligned sequences. But, as we move deeper in the tree, the approach will require aligning other single sequences to the previously aligned groups or aligning two distinct groups to each other (group-to-group alignment).
The score of each alignment decision during progressive alignment is usually computed using a weighted sum-of-pairs score which produces an average cost for the position in the alignment. This score reflects the costs associated with aligning each member of one descendant group to each member of the other descendant group. Another way to score an alignment of two groups is to use a consistency-based objective function that reflects how well the positions in the resulting MSA reflect the homology statements inferred from pairwise alignments (Notredame et al 1998). One of the programs we will use today, MAFFT, uses progressive alignment, but then refines the MSA with consistency.
MAFFT gets its name from its use of Fast Fourier Transform to quickly identify some of the more obvious regions of homology. After identifying these regions, slower dynamic programming approaches are used to join these segments into a full alignment. Thus, the main advantage of the initial version of MAFFT was speed. The speed of MAFFT has made it a favorite method for many phylogenomic studies and it has some alignment algorithms that are very useful for some common data types (e.g. UCEs, hybrid enrichment/capture-seq, RADseq). MAFFT also uses a transformation of scoring matrices (fully described in the "Scoring system" section on pages 3061 and 3062 of Katoh et al 2002) so that all of the pairwise scores are positive and costs of multi-position gaps can be computed quickly.
The steps in a MAFFT run are:
- calculation of a crude pairwise distance matrix based shared 6-tuples
- construction of a UPGMA (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean) guide tree
- FFT and dynamic programming used in progressive alignment with this initial guide tree
- improved pairwise distance matrix inferred from the alignment of step 3
- improved guide tree constructed from the new distances that were computed in step 4
- repeat of the progressive alignment algorithm (like step 3, but with the new guide tree).
- Then MAFFT repeats the following:
- break the alignment in 2 groups based on the tree
- realign these groups
- accept this alignment if it improves the score.
The first 3 steps are called FFT-NS-1. Continuing through step 6 is called FFT-NS-2. And including the iterative improvements is referred to as FFT-NS-2-i.
The following figure (from the nice review by Katoh and Toh (2008)) diagrams FFT-NS-2:
The iterative improvement steps mentioned in step 7 (which are used if you use the FFT-NS-2-i version of the algorithm) are depicted as:
Katoh et al. 2005 added consistency-based scoring in the iterative refinement stage. G-INS-i uses global alignments to construct the library of pairwise alignments used to assess consistency. L-INS-i uses local pairwise alignments with affine gaps to form the library, and E-INS-i uses local alignments with a generalized affine gap cost (which allows for an unalignable cost in addition to gap opening and gap extension costs). The contexts in which you would want to use each of these algorithms is shown below (from Figure 3 of Katoh and Toh (2008)). X's in the figure represent aligned residues and o's represent unalignable residues:
We do encounter such cases in real biological datasets. For example L-INS-I is useful for hybrid enrichment (Breinholt et al. 2018) or UCES (Faircloth 2016).
Muscle is described in Edgar et al. 2004.
Muscle is a modified progressive alignment algorithm which has comparable accuracy to MAFFT, but faster performance. Muscle has remained popular for phylogenomic studies, and there has been some evidence that Muscle is more accurate than MAFFT on amino acid alignments (Pais et al. 2014).
Broadly it consists of three stages:
Stage 1. Draft progressive alignment. The goal of the first stage is to produce a multiple alignment, emphasizing speed over accuracy, using an approximate kmer distance measure. Kmer distance between two sequences is defined by first collecting the set of k-mers (subsequences of length k) occuring in the two sequences, then measuring how different the two sets are.
Stage 2. Improved progressive. The main source of error in the draft progressive stage is the approximate kmer distance measure, which results in a suboptimal tree. MUSCLE therefore re‐estimates the tree using the Kimura distance, which is more accurate but requires an alignment.
Stage 3. Refinement. The tree is broken into subtrees, and the sub-alignments refined.
While a large number of alignment programs have been developed, we are going to focus on MAFFT and MUSCLE. Alternatives may be more accurate on small data sets, but these programs perform well even on fairly large data sets and are thus part of many phylogenomic pipelines (e.g. Yang and Smith 2014). The MAFFT algorithms and options can be viewed here. The MUSCLE user guide is found at here.
MAFFT and MUSCLE are available on the cluster. We will transfer sequences to the cluster using scp or cyberduck, run the programs as needed remotely, and then transfer back in the same way for visualization. Clusters are great for analyses, but if this is your first time using one, you will not be able to used programs that have a graphical user interface (GUI) on them.
For visualization we will use the program SeaView. Seaview is an alignment viewer, but it also allows you to estimate simple distance-based trees and invoke alignment programs. You can access help files at any time within the program by clicking on ‘Help’ in the top right corner.
A good alternative to SeaView is AliView. AliView is great for looking at properties of very large alignments. Tree building options in alignment viewers are not publication quality, but they can be useful if checking for contamination or homology errors.
This activity is structured to be done either by yourself or with a partner. Working with a partner is a great idea!
A link to the data set for this activity can be found in MSAlab.zip.
We will run the alignment software on the class cluster. Login in to the cluster on the terminal. Get the datafiles using
wget will work on the cluster. You can also use wget to download files directly to your local windows machine with gitbash. If you want to download directly to your MAC, you will need curl.
Unzip the datafile using
Exercise 1: basic functions in SeaView
Copy the 1ped.fasta file from the cluster to your laptop.
If you cannot recall the scp command, take a look at the computer lab introduction from earlier. The 1ped fasta file contains alcohol dehydrogenase nucleotide sequences from a variety of organisms; modified from BAliBASE. Start SeaView.
Load the data set 1ped.fasta by going to ‘File’ > ‘Open’. Have a look at the data. Is it aligned?
Try some of the basic commands:
To select a taxon, click on any taxon name on the left side. You can copy the sequence using the 'copy selected sequences' command in the edit menu. These can then be pasted into a text editor (e.g. Notepad++, BBEdit) if needed.
To select all sequences at once, on Macs you can type Command-A. On Windows or Linux, you can use Control-A.
Explore the edit menu and observe how sequences can be reversed, complemented etc.
Do not close the window, but move it aside for now.
Exercise 2: comparison of two different alignment programs (MAFFT and MUSCLE) using nucleotide sequences
Change directories into the MSAlab folder. Refer to the lab intro page if you have forgotten how to do this.
Programs such as MAFFT and MUSCLE and many others use flags to designate input options. These are usually a dash (-) before the command, or in the case of MAFFT a double dash (--). Sometimes programs will use a single dash with and abbreviation or a single letter to invoke and option as well as a set of double dashes for more verbose forms of those options. Examples are given throughout this lab and will become intuitive throughout the workshop.
Run a progressive alignment in MAFFT on the cluster by using the command:
mafft --retree 2 1ped.fasta > mafft_dna.fasta
The breakdown of this command is:
mafft calls the program MAFFT
--retree 2 tells MAFFT to run a progressive alignment. MAFFT uses double dashes (--) for its options. You can see why it is --retree 2 on the MAFFT webpage linked above.
1ped.fasta is the input file name, place it before the > and after all flags.
> mafft_dna.fasta tells MAFFT to place the output alignment in the file mafft_dna.fasta. For many programs a > designates where to place the output.
If the > symbol is unfamiliar to you, take a look back at the advanced UNIX tutorial.
Once the alignment process is completed, transfer the file to your own computer (through scp or Cyberduck) and open it in SeaView as in exercise 1. A new window with the aligned data will appear.
Run a standard alignment in MUSCLE on the cluster by using the command:
muscle -verbose -log muscle_dna.log -in 1ped.fasta -out muscle_dna.fasta
The breakdown of this command is:
muscle calls the program MUSCLE
-verbose is a flag that instructs MUSCLE to output a very thorough log. This allows to see exactly what MUSCLE is doing. Note that the flags here are single dashes, not double dashes as with mafft.
-log muscle_dna.log instructs MUSCLE to place all the output except the alignment itself to the log file called muscle_dna.log. This file will then include things like the gap penalty used etc.
-in 1ped.fasta instructs MUSCLE where the input file is.
-out muscle_dna.fasta instructs MUSCLE to place the alignment in the file muscle_dna.fasta. Note that -verbose and -log are not always needed but it allows you to see the default options in MUSCLE.
Once the MUSCLE alignment is done, transfer the aligned fasta file to your own computer (through scp or Cyberduck) and open it in SeaView. A new window with the aligned data will appear.
Compare the alignments resulting from MAFFT and MUSCLE. Are they different? How many columns are in each the MAFFT or the MUSCLE alignment? What may be wrong with both? (Hint: these are protein coding genes).
Build 2 trees, one from each of your nucleotide alignments:
Go to your aligned nucleotide sequences window (for both MAFFT and MUSCLE alignments) and click on ‘Trees’ > ‘Distance Methods’ > ‘NJ' and use a J-C distance metric. De-select the 'ignore all gap sites', then click to calculate 100 bootstraps.
(Note: these trees are easy for helping to evaluate your alignments, but this program should never be your tree building method).
Compare the trees from both the MAFFT and MUSCLE alignments. Do the topologies and/or branch lengths differ? (Hint: look up some species names to get an idea of the expected topology!)
Exercise 3: comparison of two different alignment approaches in MAFFT using protein sequences
In this exercise we will convert the nucleotide sequences to their equivalent protein sequences and align these instead. Note that because we are running the alignment programs externally to SeaView you cannot convert back to the original DNA sequences post alignment. If run through SeaView itself this can be done.
Return to the SeaView window with the unaligned 1ped.fasta sequences.
Click ‘Props’ > ‘View as proteins’.
Click ‘File’>’Save prot alignment” and save the file as ’1ped_aa.fasta’ with Fasta as the file format.
Transfer this file to the class cluster into the MSAlab folder.
Run an iterative alignment in MAFFT by using the command:
mafft --maxiterate 1000 1ped_aa.fasta > mafft_aa_iter.fasta
Comparing the command to the MAFFT command in exercise 2, you notice a new option to tell MAFFT to do an iterative alignment.
--maxiterate 1000 This instructs MAFFT to run an iterative alignment with maximum 1000 cycles. Load this file into SeaView.
Build a tree using your protein alignment by selecting ‘Trees’ > ‘Distance Methods’ > ‘NJ' and use a Poisson distance metric. De-click ignore gaps and do a bootstrap test as above.
Using the same 1ped_aa.fasta file, employ the MAFFT automatic selection of alignment strategy by using the command:
mafft --auto 1ped_aa.fasta > mafft_aa_auto.fasta
You can see that now we use the flag --auto to allow MAFFT to choose the best alignment strategy.
Can you determine what strategy was employed? (hint MAFFT outputs data to the screen and the strategy should be listed near the end). Load this file into SeaView.
Build a tree using your protein alignment by selecting ‘Trees’ > ‘Distance Methods’ > ‘NJ' and use a Poisson distance metric. De-select ignore gaps and use bootstrapping.
Compare amino acid alignments and trees. Which one do you prefer? Does it make sense to align protein-coding sequences using the protein translation, or should you instead build alignments from nucleotide sequences?
Exercise 4: exploring the difference in gap penalties using MUSCLE
We will now run MUSCLE with different gap penalties to observe how this changes the alignment.
Run MUSCLE with a gap penalty of -20 using the command:
muscle -verbose -log muscle_gap-20.log -in 1ped_aa.fasta -out muscle_aa_gap-20.fasta -gapopen -20
A new flag has been added here (-gapopen -20) to instruct MUSCLE to set the gap opening penatly to -20. Load the alignment into SeaView and build a tree as in exercise 3.
Run MUSCLE with a gap penalty of -1 using the command:
muscle -verbose -log muscle_gap-1.log -in 1ped_aa.fasta -out muscle_aa_gap-1.fasta -gapopen -1
The flag (-gapopen -1) instructs MUSCLE to set the gap opening penatly to -1. Load the alignment into SeaView and build a tree as in exercise 3.
Run MUSCLE with the default gap penalty using the command:
muscle -verbose -log muscle_defGap.log -in 1ped_aa.fasta -out muscle_aa.fasta
Load the alignment into SeaView and build a tree as in exercise 3.
How do the modified gap penalty alignments compare to the default one? Which alignment has the most gaps? The log files from MUSCLE will tell you the gap penalty used for each alignment?
Protip Try moving all three MUSCLE amino acid alignments to your laptop with scp!
scp username@classServername.jbpc-np.mbl.edu:/class/username/MSAlab/muscle_aa*.fasta .
This is not part of the exercises, it's just for your future information.
As you now know, it is not appropriate to align nucleotides of protein coding regions. In the exercises above, you translated the nucleotides to amino acids which you could use to infer trees. But sometimes you want to analyze nucleotides that have been aligned by codon. (Joe Bielawski will talk about some analyses that necessitate this kind of alignment.) So how do you go from an amino acid alignment back to codon-aligned nucleotides? You can use the Pal2Nal server. You will upload your protein alignment and nucleotide sequences, and it will spit out the codon alignment. Please be aware that your nucleotides must be multiples of three (i.e. a full open reading frame).
Another great option is to use PRANK (Löytynoja and Goldman 2005), which can use codon-aware data structures for alignment. Many people now write their own scripts for back-translation of aligned amino acids - here is a very ugly Perl script I wrote when starting grad school.
There are various approaches to filter poorly aligned sites out of your alignment (Gblocks, BMGE), but in some cases filtering does not improve and can even worsen tree estimation (Tan et al. 2015). Another strategy is to integrate over alignment uncertainty in a Bayesian framework (BAli-Phy; Redelings and Suchard 2005). All strategies can be justified on some basis but will come with limitations, and it is ultimately up to you to decide the most appropriate course of action for your data.
In some cases it is now easier to generate low-coverage genomic data, RADseq, or other subsamples of the genome and align to some well-assembled reference. Especially for population genetics, but also used in species-level phylogenetic studies too (e.g. Grewe et al. 2017; Figueiró et al. 2017; Rochette et al. 2019). This process is a little different than the progressive MSA discussed here, but a common short read aligner is bwa (Li and Durbin 2009). This type of reference-based alignment can then be followed by genotyping with GATK (McKenna et al. 2010), which uses the quality information of Illumina sequencers to call variants and heterozygotes. Another genotype caller with a philosophically different approach to variant calling is ANGSD (Korneliussen et al. 2014), which has many population genetic applications but not many phylogenetic methods can leverage genotype likelihoods. These topics fall outside of the scope of our workshop, but the development teams for these software have fantastic tutorials that you should be able to follow with skills developed here.
Breinholt JW, Earl C, Lemmon AR, Lemmon EM, Xiao L, Kawahara AY. 2017. Resolving relationships among the megadiverse butterflies and moths with a novel pipeline for anchored phylogenomics. Syst Biol. 67:78-93.
DePristo M, Banks E, Poplin R, Garimella K, Maguire J, Hartl C, Philippakis A, del Angel G, Rivas MA, Hanna M, McKenna A, Fennell T, Kernytsky A, Sivachenko A, Cibulskis K, Gabriel S, Altshuler D, Daly M. 2011. A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nature Genet. 43:491-498.
Edgar RC. 2004. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:1792-1797.
Faircloth BC. 2016. PHYLUCE is a software package for the analysis of conserved genomic loci. Bioinformatics. 32:786-788.
Figueiró HV, et al. 2017. Genome-wide signatures of complex introgression and adaptive evolution in the big cats. Sci Adv. 7:1700299.
Grewe F, Huang J-P, Leavitt SP, Lumbsch HT. 2017. Reference-based RADseq resolves robust relationships among closely related species of lichen-forming fungi using metagenomic DNA. Sci Rep. 7:9884
Katoh K, Misawa K, Kuma K, Miyata T. 2002. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:3059-3066.
Katoh K, Kuma K, Toh H, Miyata T. 2005. MAFFT version 5: improvement in accuracy of multiple sequence alignment. Nucleic Acids Res. 33:511-518.
Katoh K, Toh H. 2008. Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program. Brief Bioinform. 9:286-298.
Korneliussen TS, Albrechtsen A, Nielsen R. 2014. ANGSD: Analysis of Next Generation Sequencing Data. BMC Bioinformatics. 15:356.
Li H, Durbin R. 2009. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. 25:1754-1760.
Löytynoja A, Goldman N. 2005. An algorithm for progressive multiple alignment of sequences with insertions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 102:10557-10562.
McKenna A, Hanna M, Banks E, Sivachenko A, Cibulskis K, Kernytsky A, Garimella K, Altshuler D, Gabriel S, Daly M, DePristo MA. 2010. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20:1297-303.
Pais FS-M, de Cassia Ruy P, Oliveira G, Coimbra RS. 2014. Assessing the efficiency of multiple sequence alignment programs. Algorithms Mol Biol. 9:4.
Redelings BD, Suchard MA. 2005. Joint Bayesian estimation of alignment and phylogeny. Syst Biol. 54:401-418.
Rochette NC, Rivera-Colón AG, Catchen JM. 2019. Stacks 2: Analytical methods for paired-end sequencing improve RADseq-based population genomics. bioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/615385.
Tan G, Muffato M, Ledergerber C, Herrero J, Goldman N, Gil M, Dessimoz C. 2015. Current methods for automated filtering of multiple sequence alignments frequently worsen single-gene phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol. 64:778-791.
Yang Y, Smith SA. 2014. Orthology inference in nonmodel organisms using transcripts and low-coverage genomes: improving accuracy and matrix occupancy for phylogenetics. Mol Biol Evol. 31:3081-3092.