Research Article  Open Access
Cong Wang, Yabing Hai, Xiaoqing Liu, Nanfang Liu, Yuhua Yao, Pingan He, Qi Dai, "Prediction of HighRisk Types of Human Papillomaviruses Using Statistical Model of Protein “Sequence Space”", Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2015, Article ID 756345, 9 pages, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/756345
Prediction of HighRisk Types of Human Papillomaviruses Using Statistical Model of Protein “Sequence Space”
Abstract
Discrimination of highrisk types of human papillomaviruses plays an important role in the diagnosis and remedy of cervical cancer. Recently, several computational methods have been proposed based on protein sequencebased and structurebased information, but the information of their related proteins has not been used until now. In this paper, we proposed using protein “sequence space” to explore this information and used it to predict highrisk types of HPVs. The proposed method was tested on 68 samples with known HPV types and 4 samples without HPV types and further compared with the available approaches. The results show that the proposed method achieved the best performance among all the evaluated methods with accuracy 95.59% and F1score 90.91%, which indicates that protein “sequence space” could potentially be used to improve prediction of highrisk types of HPVs.
1. Introduction
Cervical cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer morbidity and mortality in women worldwide [1]. Approximately, 500,000 new cases of cervical cancer were diagnosed each year, with 280,000 deaths [2]. It has become the second most common cancer among women especially for developing countries [3, 4]. Some studies have shown that human papillomavirus (HPV) is strongly associated with cervical cancer, and some types of HPVs can cause abnormal tissue growth in the form of warts (papillomas) and some HPVs are associated with certain cancers and precancerous conditions [5–7].
Human papillomaviruses are icosahedral, nonenveloped particles that contain a small, doublestranded circular DNA of approximately 8000 nucleotide base pairs [8] and belong to the Papillomavirus family (papilloma, polyoma, and simian vacuolating viruses) [9]. The diameter of circular DNA is approximately 55 nm [10–13]. Up to now, there are more than 150 HPV types, and some new types will be identified when they have significant homology differences with the defined HPV types [14–16]. Epidemiologic studies have shown that genital human papillomaviruses have a strong relationship with cervical cancer, independent of other risk factors. According to their relative malignancy, the genital tract HPVs can be grouped into two or three types: lowrisk type, intermediaterisk type, and highrisk types [17]. But HPVs are usually divided into two types in clinical association study: highrisk or lowrisk types. Lowrisk viral types are more closely related with lowgrade lesions, and highrisk viral types are associated with highgrade cervical lesions and cancers [17]. Highrisk type is composed of 20 HPV types, such as HPV16, HPV18, HPV26, HPV31, HPV33, HPV35, HPV39, HPV45, HPV51–53, HPV56, HPV58, HPV59, HPV66, HPV68, HPV70, HPV73, HPV82, and HPV85 [18]. HPV16 and HPV18 are responsible for about 62.6% and 15.7% of cervical cancers [19]. Therefore, discrimination of highrisk types of HPVs becomes one of the most important things for diagnosis and therapy of cervical cancers.
Because of the importance of the HPV types, many epidemiological and experimental methods have been proposed to identify them [5, 20–22]. They are mostly based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a sensitive technique for the detection of very small amounts of HPV nucleic acids in clinical specimens. With rapid increasing of the HPV data in protein and DNA databank, there is a great need to develop some reliable and effective computational methods to predict the highrisk types of HPVs directly from the available data.
Recently, some research works found the correlations between these data and highrisk types of HPVs and proposed some computational methods to predict the highrisk types of HPVs. Eom et al. learned the most informative subsequence segment sets of DNA sequences and used genetic algorithm to classify the risk types of each HPV [23]. Joung et al. classified the risk type of HPVs based on the hidden Markov model and the support vector machines using the protein sequences [24, 25]. Park et al. proposed a classification of the risk type of human papillomavirus by decision tree [26]. Kim and Zhang introduced the string kernel and Gapspectrum kernel to compute the distances of amino acids pairs and further used them to classify HPV risk types based on E6 protein sequences [7, 9]. Kim et al. proposed an Ensemble support vector machine to classify HPV risk types based on the differential subsequences of protein secondary structures [13]. Esmaeili et al. calculated Chou’s pseudo amino acid composition of E6 protein sequences and used ROC to predict HPV risk types [27]. Alemi et al. analyzed the physiochemical properties of all early and late proteins in high and lowrisk HPV types and introduced support vector machines to classify highrisk HPV types based on receiver operating characteristic analysis [28].
These methods have achieved promising results in highrisk types of HPVs prediction, but challenges for information extraction of HPVs still remain. The widely used information of HPVs in highrisk type prediction is sequencebased or structurebased information from the given DNA or protein sequence, and the information from related proteins or family has not been explored until now. With this problem in mind, we presented a novel scheme to predict highrisk types of HPVs using word statistical model of protein sequence space and support vector machine. We first constructed a “sequence space” of the given protein sequence with help of mutation matrices. We then extracted the information of HPV from the protein “sequence space” with the proposed word statistical model. At last, the extracted information was fed into support vector machine to predict highrisk types of HPVs. Through several experiments, we want to address how well the proposed prediction method performed when comparing with the available ones and whether the prediction abilities of the proposed prediction method depends on the choice of the mutation matrices.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Datasets
All types of HPV share a common genomic structure which is arranged into the upstream regulatory region (URR) and eight open reading frames (ORFs) encoding the viral early and late genes [11]. URR contains long control region, TATA signal 1 and TATA signal 2. There are polyA signal 1 and polyA signal 2 between early and late genes. Late gene expression produces the structural proteins L1 and L2 [12], which assemble into the viral capsid structure, whereas early gene activity translates into the regulatory proteins E1, E2, E4, E5, E6, and E7. In this paper, we constructed seven datasets of HPV protein sequences: E1, E2, E4, E6, E7, L1, and L2, respectively. Here, we did not use HPV E5 because the lengths of its protein sequences are too small. All the HPV datasets were downloaded from the Human Papillomaviruses Compendium published by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).
There are total 72 types of HPVs in each dataset, but some HPV sequences are missing in LANL. So we downloaded the missing sequences from taxonomy browser in the National Center of Biotechnology Information. For example, HPV 43, 67, 75, 76, 77, and 80 protein sequences are missing in L2 dataset; we obtained these sequences from taxonomy browser. But we could not find the missed sequences of the E4 dataset in the National Center of Biotechnology Information, so the total number of HPV sequences is 71 in the E4 dataset. Among HPV sequences, four sequences (HPV 26, 54, 57, and 70) are selected as the predicting data and others are the training data [13]. Here, HPV risk types are manually determined based on the HPV compendium, in which seventeen HPV types are classified as highrisk types (HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 61, 66, 67, 68, and 72) and the remaining are lowrisk types.
2.2. Construction of Protein “Sequence Space”
It is well known that there are over 20 amino acids and each one is different from the others. Mutation matrices represent the similarities among amino acids. Let and denote two amino acids from the set , and their score was defined as follows:where represents the “normalized probability” that the amino acid mutates into the amino acid . In evolutionary biology, the score describes the rate at which one amino acid in a protein sequence changes to other amino acids states over time. That is to say the sequence similarity depends on the amino acids’ scores represented in above definition. Usually, two amino acids and are considered similar if their score is more than zeros. It is worth noting that the similarity between and is symmetric, but it is not a transitive relation. For example, is similar to and is similar to , but is not similar to .
Taking amino acids’ scores into mind, we classified 20 amino acids into several overlapping classes. Here, star sets were introduced, in which the properties are known between vertices and center. Given an amino acid , its star set was defined as follows:where sig is a function that returns the sign of a number, indicating whether the number is positive or zero. If number is greater than zero, 1, otherwise, to zero. For example, 20 amino acids can be partitioned into several star sets based on PAM250 mutation matrix, which was presented in Table 1.

We wanted to go further with the star sets and found some related protein sequences that have a high similarity among them. Suppose and are two given protein sequences; they are related if they satisfy the following condition:From the above definition, it is easy to note that if two protein sequences have more similar sequences, they should be more closely related. With help of definition of related sequences, we constructed the “sequence space” of given sequence , denoted by , as follows.
Step 1. Given a nullset, denoted by , add its star sets to and obtain protein “sequence space” .
Step 2. A prefix was added to and obtained its star set . We checked whether the star set of the prefix is empty or not. If its star set is a nonempty set, we added a symbol “−” after and updated the protein “sequence space” .
Step 3. We repeated Step 2 until the end of the given sequence and obtained its protein “sequence space” as follows:In the construction of the protein sequence space, all the protein sequences were closely related to the given protein sequence. That is to say all the information on the related proteins or family could be explored through the construction of the protein “sequence space.”
2.3. Word Statistical Model in Protein “Sequence Space”
Word statistical model is one of the most widely used methods for sequence analysis [29–32]. In this model, each sequence is first mapped into an dimensional vector according to its word frequencies, and sequence similarity can be measured by distance measures, such as Euclidean distance [33], Mahalanobis distance [34], KullbackLeibler discrepancy [35], and Cosine distance [36]. When the words occurring in biological sequence are estimative probabilities rather than the frequencies, they are more readily optimized by more complex models, such as Markov model [37–39], mixed model [40], and Bernoulli model [41]. These complex models could be considered to be the modification of traditional wordbased models.
A biological sequence can be described as a succession of symbols, and a word is a series of consecutive letters in the sequence. For a sequence , the count of its word , denoted by , is the number of occurrence of the word in the sequence . Here, we constructed a word statistical model in protein “sequence space.” First of all, a position function of an occurrence of the word was defined as follows: The count of the word in the protein “sequence space” can be defined from the random indicators of occurrence as followsIn order to eliminate the effects of space size, we normalized the word contents with the size of the space and got word frequencies of protein “sequence space,” denoted as . Considerwhere is the size of the star set and is the total number of the words that appear in the protein “sequence space” .
2.4. Prediction Algorithm
There are two types of HPV protein sequences: highrisk type and lowrisk type. Let denote the type labels of samples, where indicates the th sample being risk type , where denotes two different risk types ( indicates the th sample being highrisk type, and indicates the th sample being lowrisk type). Let be the th word frequency in protein “sequence space” for the th sample, where ; denotes all the statistical information of “sequence space” for all samples,where are samples and and . With help of the support vector machine (SVM), the prediction problem of HPV types was formulated as follows: where is defined as a Linear combination of the set of nonlinear data transformations is a bias term, is a regularization metaparameter, and denotes the training error for the th sample. This optimization problem derived in a dual space can be written asIn this paper, we used the Gaussian radius basis function kernel to calculate the instead of calculating either or explicitly. Then the optimal separating problem was modeled asAnd the classifier takes the formAfter training the model, a test sample will be assigned to a risk type according to the following decision function:When is 1, it means that the test sample is the highrisk type of HPV; otherwise, should be lowrisk type. Here, we selected the parameters for the sake of getting the highest overall prediction as possible. A simple grid search strategy based on 10fold crossvalidation for each dataset was performed to get the optimal values of and for prediction algorithm.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Evaluation Measures
Subsampling test, independent dataset test, and jackknife test are three widely used crossvalidation methods to evaluate prediction’s capability. The jackknife test always yields a unique outcome, which facilitates examining the quality of various predictors. Hence, we chose jackknife test to evaluate the performance of the proposed method and introduced the accuracy for each class, overall accuracy, and score as standard performance measures, which were defined as follows: where is the number of true positives, is the number of false positives, is the number of true negatives, and is the number of false negatives. From their definition, it is interesting to note that score will be higher if is bigger. That is to say score will be better to reflect the efficiency of HPV risk type prediction capacity.
3.2. Comparison of Early and Late Proteins’ Performances in HPV Type Prediction
The HPV genome encodes a number of early (E1, E2, E4, E5, and E6) and late (L1 and L2) proteins [3, 5]. Several methods classified the highrisk and lowrisk HPVs using the information from protein sequences, secondary structure, and pseudo amino acid composition [23–28]. But most of them used E6, E7, or L1 proteins. In this study, we constructed seven protein datasets of E1, E2, E4, E6, E7, L1, and L2 and compared their performance in HPV type prediction. The proteins of E5 were not included because their lengths are too small. The accuracy of each class, overall accuracy, and score of all the early and late proteins were summarized in Figure 1.
From Figure 1, it is easy to observe that the accuracies of lowrisk type are higher than that of highrisk type. For the lowrisk type prediction experiment, E7 performs better than other HPV proteins expect for mutation matrix p200. But as for highrisk type prediction and alltype prediction experiments E6 achieves the best performance among all the HPV proteins according to the accuracies and scores. Some experiment studies have shown that E5, E6, and E7 proteins of highrisk HPV play an important role in disease progression and cancer [14]. E5 protein enhances halflife and activity of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). E6 and E7 proteins inactivate p53 and Rb functions [42]. The results also highlight that the sequences of E6 protein are more suitable for HPV highrisk type prediction and E7 protein is more reliable for HPV lowrisk type prediction in the proposed model.
3.3. Comparison of Mutation Matrices in HPV Type Prediction
The proposed word statistical model was constructed based on protein “sequence space” that relies heavily on the mutation matrix. In order to evaluate the influence of different mutation matrices, we adopted ten mutation matrices including PAM 40, PAM 80, PAM 120, PAM 200, PAM 250, BLOSUM 40, BLOSUM 45, BLOSUM 62, BLOSUM 80, and BLOSUM 100. The accuracy of each class, overall accuracy, and score of the proposed prediction method based on ten mutation matrices were represented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 largely confirms that the proposed prediction method possesses different performances based on the different mutation matrices. The changes of highrisk type and alltype prediction experiments are similar, but there is a bit of difference in the lowrisk type prediction experiments. As for the BLOSUM mutation matrices, BLOSUM 45 and BLOSUM 62 perform better in the prediction of highrisk type of HPVs. For PAM mutation matrices, PAM 40 and PAM 80 achieve the better performance in the highrisk type prediction experiments. Judging from prediction accuracy, it is easier to recognize that PAM 40 achieves the best performance based on E6 protein among PAM and BLOSUM matrices except for PAM 80 with E4 protein. These results maybe give us some suggestion on how to choose a suitable mutation matrix for the prediction of highrisk type of HPVs based on the different protein sequences.
3.4. HPV Classification
In this study, we extracted the information using the word statistical model of E6 protein “sequence space” that was constructed based on PAM 40 mutation matrix. Leaveoneout crossvalidation was applied to determine the prediction performance for all experimental results. HPV types were grouped into two classes, highrisk and lowrisk. Table 2 shows the comparison of the manually tagged answer and the results from the proposed prediction approach.

Table 2 shows that the proposed prediction method achieves better performance, in which the prediction results of 65 HPV types are consistent with their real risk types. HPV 66 and HPV 72 are highrisk types, but they are predicted as lowrisk type, and HPV 30 is lowrisk type, but predicted as highrisk type using the proposed prediction method. In order to highlight the prediction differences, we further compared our results with Kim’s results [13]. As for Kim’s prediction, HPV 72 was predicted as possible highrisk type, but it was predicted as “lowrisk type” in the proposed method; HPV 56 was predicted as possible highrisk type, while we predicted it as highrisk type; HPV 53 and HPV 73 were predicted as possible highrisk types, but they are lowrisk types in our results. Phylogenetic analysis showed that HPV 30 was grouped closely with the established carcinogenic type HPV 56, which indicates that HPV 30 is more likely highrisk type. From the comparison, it is easy to note that the results obtained with the proposed method are more consistent with the real risk types.
To further evaluate the performance of the proposed prediction method, we computed the overall accuracy and score and compared them with the published results in Figure 2. The methods evaluated here are as follows: SVM using Mismatch kernels (Mismatch) that have been reported in Joung et al. [24], SVM with Linear kernel method (Linear) [13], SVM classifier with the Gapspectrum kernel (Gap) [7], BLAST predictions with a slight modification of the nearest neighbor method [13], Ensemble SVM (Ensemble) based on protein secondary structures [13], and two textbased prediction methods AdaCost [26] and nave Bayes [26].
The proposed approach achieved 95.59% accuracy and 90.91% score, while the Ensemble SVMs obtained 94.12% accuracy and 88.89% score, and SVM with Mismatch kernel achieved 92.70% accuracy and 85.70% score, and SVM using Linear kernel with 90.28% accuracy and 83.72% score and BLAST with 91.18% accuracy and 88.24% score. As for textbased prediction method, AdaCost [26] achieved better performance with 93.05% accuracy and 84.490 % score, and Naive Bayes [26] lags behind with 81.94% accuracy and 63.64% score. According to the prediction accuracy and score, the proposed prediction method achieved the best performance among all the evaluated prediction methods; the next best prediction approach is Ensemble SVMs, and the others lag behind. It is worth mentioning that the proposed approach is based on protein sequences as well as Mismatch, Linear, and Gap, while Ensemble uses the information from the predicted protein secondary structures. We also noted that textbased prediction does not provide superior results compared with other prediction methods. Although textbased prediction methods have an advantage in having explicit key words in the document, but they rely on the evidence obtained from the literature. When there is no available document for HPVs with unknown risk type, it is impossible to predict them. This comparison also indicates that the proposed word statistical model based on protein “sequence space” is more effective to classify risk types of human papillomaviruses.
3.5. Prediction for Unknown HPV Types
The most important task of this paper is to predict highrisk types of new HPV. Here, we downloaded the E6 protein sequences of HPVs with unknown types from the LANL database and used them to further evaluate the performance of the proposed approach. Table 3 shows the prediction results of all the HPVs with unknown types.
From Table 3, HPV 26 and HPV 70 were predicted as highrisk types and HPV 54 and HPV 57 as lowrisk types using the proposed method. In order to compare with the existing methods, we also represented the prediction results of available approaches in Table 3. From the HPV classification, we knew that the proposed prediction method achieved the best performance, and it is followed by Ensemble SVMs. From Table 3, it is easy to note that the proposed method and Ensemble SVMs achieve the same results. As for the HPV 54 and HPV 57, all the methods predicted them as lowrisk types. For HPV 26, the proposed method, PseAAC [27], Ensemble [13], and Gap [7] predicted it as highrisk type, while Mismatch [24], Linear [13], and Genetic [23] predicted it as lowrisk type. According to the reliabilities of the prediction approaches, HPV 26 should be highrisk type. As for HPV 70, all the prediction methods predicted it as highrisk type except for Genetic [23] and PseAAC [27]. These results show that the proposed method can provide a simple but efficient guideline for the investigation of potentially highrisk HPVs.
4. Conclusion
Genital human papillomaviruses have a strong relationship with cervical cancer, especially highrisk viral types of HPVs. Therefore, discrimination of HPV risk type plays an important role in the diagnosis and remedy of cervical cancer. This paper proposed a computational scheme to predict highrisk types of HPVs with word statistical model of protein “sequence space.” With help of mutation matrices, we first constructed a sequence space of the given protein sequences. Instead of only using sequencebased or structurebased information of protein sequences, we extracted the information of HPV from the protein “sequence space” with word statistical model to predict highrisk types of HPVs. The proposed method was tested on 68 samples with known HPV types and 4 samples with unknown HPV types. The results show that the proposed method achieved better performance in comparison to the previous methods.
The main goal of our research is to investigate a new prediction method based on protein “sequence space.” The first contribution can be seen from comparison of early and late proteins’ performances in HPV type prediction; we found that the “sequence space” of E6 protein is more suitable for HPV highrisk type prediction, while that of E7 protein is more reliable protein for HPV lowrisk type prediction. The second contribution can be indicated from comparison of mutation matrices in HPV type prediction; we noticed that PAM 40 achieves the best performance with the sequences of E6 protein among PAM and BLOSUM matrices except for PAM 80 with E4 protein. The third contribution can be deduced from HPV classification and prediction for unknown HPV types; we found that the proposed prediction method achieved the best performance among all the evaluated prediction methods, with 95.59% accuracy and 90.91% score, which can be contributed to the introduction of the protein “sequence space.” Thus, this understanding can be used to guide development of more powerful method for prediction of highrisk types of HPVs.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the referees for many valuable comments that have improved this paper. This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (61370015, 61170316, and 61272312), research grants from Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LY14F020046), Medicine and Health Foundation of Zhejiang Province (20112011RCA012), and 521 Talent Cultivation Plan of Zhejiang SciTech University.
References
 E.K. Yim and J.S. Park, “Role of proteomics in translational research in cervical cancer,” Expert Review of Proteomics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 21–36, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 O. PeraltaZaragoza, V. H. BermúdezMorales, C. PérezPlasencia, J. SalazarLeón, C. GómezCerón, and V. MadridMarina, “Targeted treatments for cervical cancer: a review,” OncoTargets and Therapy, vol. 5, pp. 315–328, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Jemal, F. Bray, M. M. Center, J. Ferlay, E. Ward, and D. Forman, “Global cancer statistics,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 69–90, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Formana, C. de Martel, C. J. Lacey et al., “Global burden of human papillomavirus and related diseases,” Vaccine, vol. 30, supplement 5, pp. F12–F23, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. X. Bosch, M. M. Manos, N. Munoz et al., “Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 87, no. 11, pp. 796–802, 1995. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. H. Schiffman, H. M. Bauer, R. N. Hoover et al., “Epidemiologic evidence showing that human papillomavirus infection causes most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 85, no. 12, pp. 958–964, 1993. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Kim and J.H. Eom, “Prediction of the human papillomavirus risk types using gapspectrum kernels,” in Advances in Neural Networks—ISNN 2006, vol. 3973 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 710–715, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. L. Pang and F. Thierry, “Human papillomavirus proteins as prospective therapeutic targets,” Microbial Pathogenesis, vol. 58, pp. 55–65, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Kim and B.T. Zhang, “Human papillomavirus risk type classification from protein sequences using support vector machines,” in Applications of Evolutionary Computing, vol. 3907 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 57–66, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Haedicke and T. Iftner, “Human papillomaviruses and cancer,” Radiotherapy & Oncology, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 397–402, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Peng, L. Gao, J. Guo et al., “Typespecific detection of 30 oncogenic human papillomaviruses by genotyping both E6 and L1 genes,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 402–408, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. S. Longworth and L. A. Laimins, “Pathogenesis of human papillomaviruses in differentiating epithelia,” Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 362–372, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Kim, J. Kim, and B.T. Zhang, “Ensembled support vector machines for human papillomavirus risk type prediction from protein secondary structures,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 187–193, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E.M. de Villiers, C. Fauquet, T. R. Broker, H.U. Bernard, and H. Zur Hausen, “Classification of papillomaviruses,” Virology, vol. 324, no. 1, pp. 17–27, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. Münger, A. Baldwin, K. M. Edwards et al., “Mechanisms of human papillomavirusinduced oncogenesis,” Journal of Virology, vol. 78, no. 21, pp. 11451–11460, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. L. Eide and H. Debaque, “HPV detection methods and genotyping techniques in screening for cervical cancer,” Annales de Pathologie, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. e15–e23, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. F. Janicek and H. E. Averette, “Cervical cancer: prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutics,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 92–114, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. D. Kaspersen, P. B. Larsen, H. J. Ingerslev et al., “Identification of multiple HPV types on Spermatozoa from human sperm donors,” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 3, Article ID e18095, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Guan, R. HowellJones, N. Li et al., “Human papillomavirus types in 115,789 HPVpositive women: a metaanalysis from cervical infection to cancer,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 131, no. 10, pp. 2349–2359, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. Furumoto and M. Irahara, “Human papilloma virus (HPV) and cervical cancer,” Journal of Medical Investigation, vol. 49, no. 34, pp. 124–133, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
 R. D. Burk, G. Y. F. Ho, L. Beardsley, M. Lempa, M. Peters, and R. Bierman, “Sexual behavior and partner characteristics are the predominant risk factors for genital human papillomavirus infection in young women,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 174, no. 4, pp. 679–689, 1996. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Muñoz, F. X. Bosch, S. De Sanjosé et al., “Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 348, no. 6, pp. 518–527, 2003. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. H. Eom, S. B. Park, and B. T. Zhang, “Genetic mining of DNA sequence structures for effective classification of the risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV),” in Neural Information Processing: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference, ICONIP 2004, Calcutta, India, November 22–25, 2004, vol. 3316 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1334–1343, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J.G. Joung, O. Sok June, and B.T. Zhang, “Prediction of the risk types of human papillomaviruses by Support Vector Machines,” in Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI '04), pp. 723–731, August 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 J.G. Joung, O. S. June, and B.T. Zhang, “Protein sequencebased risk classification for human papillomaviruses,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 656–667, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S.B. Park, S. Hwang, and B.T. Zhang, “Mining the risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV) by AdaCost,” in Database and Expert Systems Applications: 14th International Conference, DEXA 2003, Prague, Czech Republic, September 1–5, 2003. Proceedings, vol. 2736 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 403–412, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2003. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Esmaeili, H. Mohabatkar, and S. Mohsenzadeh, “Using the concept of Chou's pseudo amino acid composition for risk type prediction of human papillomaviruses,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 263, no. 2, pp. 203–209, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Alemi, H. Mohabatkar, and M. Behbahani, “In silico comparison of low and highrisk human papillomavirus proteins,” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, vol. 172, no. 1, pp. 188–195, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Liao, W. Chen, X. Sun, and W. Zhu, “A binary coding method of RNA secondary structure and its application,” Journal of Computational Chemistry, vol. 30, no. 14, pp. 2205–2212, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Liao and T.M. Wang, “Analysis of similarity/dissimilarity of DNA sequences based on nonoverlapping triplets of nucleotide bases,” Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1666–1670, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Zhang, J. K. Hao, C. G. Zhou, and K. Chang, “Normalized LempelZiv complexity and its application in biosequence analysis,” Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1203–1212, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  MathSciNet
 Y. Zhang and W. Chen, “Invariants of DNA sequences based on 2DDcurves,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 242, no. 2, pp. 382–388, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  MathSciNet
 B. E. Blaisdell, “A measure of the similarity of sets of sequences not requiring sequence alignment,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 83, no. 14, pp. 5155–5159, 1986. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T.J. Wu, J. P. Burke, and D. B. Davison, “A measure of DNA sequence dissimilarity based on Mahalanobis distance between frequencies of words,” Biometrics, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1431–1439, 1997. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  MathSciNet
 T.J. Wu, Y.C. Hsieh, and L.A. Li, “Statistical measures of DNA sequence dissimilarity under Markov chain models of base composition,” Biometrics, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 441–448, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  MathSciNet
 G. W. Stuart, K. Moffett, and S. Baker, “Integrated gene and species phylogenies from unaligned whole genome protein sequences,” Bioinformatics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 100–108, 2002. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. D. Pham and J. Zuegg, “A probabilistic measure for alignmentfree sequence comparison,” Bioinformatics, vol. 20, no. 18, pp. 3455–3461, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Wu, X.F. Wan, G. Wu, D. Xu, and G. Lin, “Phylogenetic analysis using complete signature information of whole genomes and clustered NeighbourJoining method,” International Journal of Bioinformatics Research and Applications, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 219–248, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Apostolico and O. Denas, “Fast algorithms for computing sequence distances by exhaustive substring composition,” Algorithms for Molecular Biology, vol. 3, no. 1, article 13, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Q. Dai, Y. C. Yang, and T. M. Wang, “Markov model plus kword distributions: a synergy that produces novel statistical measures for sequence comparison,” Bioinformatics, vol. 24, no. 20, pp. 2296–2302, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. Lu, S. Zhang, and X. Fang, “An improved string composition method for sequence comparison,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 9, no. 6, article S15, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. R. Gage, C. Meyers, and F. O. Wettstein, “The E7 proteins of the nononcogenic human papillomavirus type 6b (HPV6b) and of the oncogenic HPV16 differ in retinoblastoma protein binding and other properties,” Journal of Virology, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 723–730, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Cong Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.