Gene Sequence to 2D Vector Transformation for Virus Classification

2.1 Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) Fundamentals and Twiddle Factors

The DFT is a mathematical tool extensively employed in signal processing to convert one-dimensional numerical sequences into their frequency domain counterparts. The DFT is mathematically expressed as shown in Equation 1: In this equation, X[k] denotes the k-th complex frequency component of the DFT output, and x[n] represents the n-th element of the input data sequence. The term N signifies the total number of data points in the sequence. Both indices k and n range from 0 to N−1, facilitating the enumeration of frequency components and data sequence elements, respectively.

The DFT formula presented in Equation 1 is a symplyfied version, which use the concept of the twiddle factor W_N . The term twiddle factor is defined as in Equation 2: In this representation, j is the imaginary unit (j² = −1), and e is the base of the natural logarithm.The term represents the twiddle factor raised to the power of k. For a specific k value ranging from 0 to corresponds to a complex number on the unit circle in the complex plane.

The magnitude is always equal to 1, indicating that it represents a unit vector on the complex plane. The phase component e^jθ determines the angle θ, which positions the complex number on the unit circle.

As k varies from 0 to N−1, the angle θ changes, causing the complex number represented by to rotate on the unit circle. For example, if N = 16 and k varies from 0 to 15, represents complex numbers on the unit circle with different angular positions. The phase (angular values) of the vectors can be determined as θ = 2πk/N .

2.2 Representing Nucleotide Transitions with Twiddle Factors

In this study, we assert that transitions between nucleotide bases can be effectively represented by corresponding complex values, which are unit vectors. This assertion constitutes a significant and foundational aspect of our encoding method. For an illustration of the vectors, refer to Figure 2. The methodology for encoding DNA sequences into a two-dimensional numerical space is summarized as follows:

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Visualization of Twiddle Factors used in encoding transitions between nucleotide bases. Panel A visually depicts the twiddle factors as vectors in the complex plane, annotated with their respective k values. Panels B and C exhibit the real and imaginary components of these twiddle factors, respectively.

• Sequence Transition: The DNA sequence of viruses, comprising a series of nucleotides, is initially translated into a sequence of transitions. Each transition encapsulates a pair of consecutive nucleotides, capturing the sequential information inherent in the DNA sequence.

• Mapping Transitions to Indices: Employing a predefined encoding scheme detailed in Table 1, each unique nucleotide transition is allocated a distinct numerical index. This step converts the sequence of nucleotide pairs into an index sequence, setting the stage for subsequent encoding steps.

  View this table:

  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

  Table 1:

  Transitions between Nucleotide Bases

• Applying Twiddle Factors: Twiddle factors, are then assigned to each numeric transition based on the index derived from the encoding scheme. Figure 2 graphically represents these associations. These twiddle factors are instrumental in transposing transitions into a two-dimensional numerical space.

• Encoding into 2D Space: Commencing from the origin (0,0) in the 2D space, the encoding process iteratively applies the twiddle factor corresponding to each transition to navigate to the subsequent point. This recursive addition of twiddle factors allows for the construction of a path through the 2D space, ultimately encoding the entire sequence of transitions as a path in the 2D plane.

This representation is central to our methodology for encoding DNA sequences. Figure 3 outlines the novel encoding technique, which forms the essence of our innovative approach. Panel A of Figure 3 depicts a complete DNA sequence of a virus in two-dimensional space, illustrating the dynamic representation of the sequence and offering insight into its underlying patterns and nucleotide transitions. Panel B presents a specific segment of the DNA sequence, detailing the sequence of base transitions alongside their corresponding numerical indices, thereby shedding light on the foundational mapping and conversion processes integral to our encoding strategy. Finally, Panel C demonstrates the conversion of a DNA sequence segment into vectors within the two-dimensional plane, emphasizing the transformative aspect of our approach which simplifies the visualization and analysis of complex genetic information.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Transformation of DNA sequences into 2D vector transitions. Panel A presents a complete DNA sequence of a virus, dynamically unfolded in a two-dimensional space, revealing intricate patterns and relational nuances inherent in the sequence. Panel B focuses on a segment of the DNA sequence, disclosing individual base transitions and their corresponding sequential indices, elucidating the core mechanics of our encoding strategy. Panel C showcases the conversion of a DNA sequence segment into expressive vectors in the two-dimensional domain, highlighting the innovative transformation process that simplifies the visualization and analysis of complex genetic data.

In subsequent sections, we will harness this encoding method in conjunction with subsequent processing, further dimensionality reduction and Machine Learning techniques to explore its effectiveness in distinguishing between six viral species within the Coronaviridae family.

2.3 Pre-processing

2.4 Computing Features from ‘Time’ and ‘Spectral Domain’

Dimensionality reduction strategies, which encompass both feature selection and feature extraction, have been advanced to address the complexities inherent in genomic data Afshar and Usefi [2020], Bonidia et al. [2021b]. These strategies are pivotal when working with high-dimensional datasets, such as those derived from genomic sequencing.

In this context, features for classifying virus sequences were computed using the two-dimensional space representations of preprocessed sequences. These representations were obtained subsequent to the application of mean-average subsampling (Section 2.3.2) and Uniform X-Value Redistribution (Section 2.3.3). The primary objective of this computation is not merely to optimize feature extraction but to underscore the effectiveness of our DNA sequence encoding methodology. Our focus is to derive features that unequivocally illustrate the capacity of our encoding strategy for efficient low-dimensional representation, facilitating tasks such as virus classification and visual discrimination.

Two distinct categories of features were extracted for this purpose: time-domain features and spectral-domain features. Each category is elucidated in the following sections, providing insights into their computation and relevance to the overarching goal of the study.

2.5 Experimental Setup

In this section, we elucidate the methodology adopted in our experiments, describing the datasets, machine learning models, evaluation metrics, and validation strategies that constitute the backbone of our research.

2.5.4 Validation Strategy

For the training phase, the dataset was segregated into training and validation subsets following an 80% to 20% ratio, with a keen focus on maintaining class stratification. This stratification is crucial, especially for datasets that exhibit class imbalances. Stratified cross-validation was the chosen method, with a ten-fold (k = 10) approach determined to be most effective after evaluating various fold configurations for optimal model performance.

Regarding hyperparameters, extensive tuning was considered unnecessary, as the default settings offered by the scikit-learn library were suitable for most models. The settings for the model hyperparameters are outlined as follows:

• Random Forest (RF): Settled on using 10 trees in the ensemble, with a requirement of at least 2 samples to split an internal node. This configuration aims to balance model complexity with generalization capability.

• K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN): Opted for k = 3, meaning the classification of a sample is influenced by the three nearest neighbors, employing the Euclidean distance to measure closeness.

• Decision Tree (DT): Imposed a maximum depth of 5 levels for the tree and required a minimum of 5 samples per node to curb the model’s complexity, enhancing its generalization to new data.

• Support Vector Classifier (SVC): Adopted a radial basis function (RBF) kernel, with the gamma parameter set to ‘auto’, facilitating an adaptable decision boundary that adjusts to the data’s intrinsic distribution without manual tuning.

These model-specific configurations were strategically chosen to optimize performance while ensuring the models remain robust and generalizable to unseen data. Learning curves for each model were generated to observe their behaviors during the training process as the number of samples increased, as shown in Figure 4.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Training curves referring to the ML models adopted in this paper.

It is observed that the training and validation scores remain high (above 90%) in all models. With each iteration, validation scores tend to improve as more training data is incorporated with the exception of the 4(a) curve where there is a slight drop in its score as the amount of interaction and samples increases, however, the validation curve quickly approaches the training curve. The training curve obtained through the DT model (see Figure 4(c)), presents a subtle fluctuation between its validation curve even with the increase in the number of samples, which may indicate potential saturation of the model. All curves indicate that there is a good compensation between bias and variance and indicate that the quantities of samples used in model training would be sufficient, considering that the models stabilize with a considerable number of samples. The results of the analysis of the learning curves indicate a robust and promising performance of the evaluated models. The consistency of high scores in both training and validation suggests an effective learning and generalization capability. The identification of potential saturation points in certain models, particularly notable in the training curve of the DT model, indicates the need to consider additional strategies to optimize performance as the complexity of the problem increases or with the expansion of data. The absence of signs of overfitting and the minimal difference between the training and validation curves reinforce the reliability of the models to accurately generalize to new datasets.

3.1 Results of ML Models Used for Classification

Several performance metrics were employed to assess the efficacy of ML models in a multiclass classification challenge involving six distinct virus types from the Coronaviridae family—including SARS-CoV-2—. These include accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and F1-score, derived from both temporal and spectral data generated through the methodology introduced in this study. Utilizing k-fold cross-validation with k set to 10, we computed the mean of these metrics across each fold for the training dataset. The outcomes, showcasing the models’ performance based on spectral data, are detailed in Table 2.

The SVM demonstrated superior performance among the evaluated models, achieving optimal results across all metrics. This suggests its ability to differentiate all six viral subtypes in the training dataset. Following closely, the KNN model showcased near-optimal performance, with an accuracy of 99.99%, precision of 99.8%, recall of 99.9%, and an F1-score. The RF model also exhibited commendable performance, exceeding 99% across all metrics. Despite the DT model achieving accuracy and precision rates above 99%, it exhibited a marginal decline in recall (98.8%) and F1-score (98.7%) compared to the RF and KNN models. This indicates that the DT model might possess a slightly reduced capacity to identify all positive instances accurately. Thus, the KNN and SVM models display optimal and nearly optimal performance across all metrics. In contrast, the DT and RF models show minor reductions in recall, precision, and F1-score values for the training data.

Beyond the traditional performance metrics, standard deviation emerges as a vital statistic for assessing models’ variability, consistency, and stability throughout their training phase. For the RF, K-KNN, DT, and SVM models, the standard deviation values of accuracy were recorded as 0.00476, 0.00357, 0.00476, and 0.00, respectively. The SVM demonstrated a zero standard deviation, signaling uniform performance across all training folds, underpinning its exemplary metrics. Conversely, the KNN model presented the subsequent lowest standard deviation (0.00357), showcasing a high level of performance consistency during training. This low variability suggests that KNN’s performance metrics were notably stable across different training folds, contributing to the model’s overall reliability.

Regarding the RF and DT models, both achieved standard deviation values of 0.00476, reflecting comparable levels of consistency in their performance variability. This consistency suggests that these models and the previously mentioned KNN demonstrate stable prediction accuracy and are less prone to variations in the training data sets. Although the SVM recorded the lowest standard deviation (0.00), indicating unparalleled stability across training folds, this perfect uniformity may also hint at the model’s susceptibility to overfitting. To mitigate this risk and enhance the SVM’s ability to generalize across different data sets, a review and adjustment of its hyperparameters or an expansion of the training data might be warranted to diminish potential biases.

Figure 8 displays the confusion matrices for the test datasets of the models applied in this study, specifically for spectral data analysis. These matrices enable a direct visualization of the models’ generalization capabilities on data not encountered during the training phase. Importantly, this analysis encompasses all viral subtypes included in the database for the training phase, thereby illustrating the models’ ability to classify a broad range of viral genetic signatures accurately.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8:

Confusion matrices for virus classification using spectral features. Each panel (a) through (d) corresponds to a different machine learning model—RF, kNN, DT, and SVM—and displays the predictive accuracy for six virus classes.

The proficiency of the RF and KNN models in accurately classifying all samples is prominently illustrated in the confusion matrices for the test data, as shown in Figure 8 a) and b)). This outcome underscores the efficacy of these models in differentiating between virus samples within the same viral family and correctly categorizing each sample into its respective class. The confusion matrix for the DT model, depicted in Figure 8 c), reveals a minor error where the model misclassified a single SARS-CoV-2 sample as Beta-CoV-1. This model achieved an accuracy of 99.50%, precision of 99.43%, recall of 99.83%, and an F1-score of 99.62% on the test data, aligning with its average training performance. Such a misclassification could stem from structural similarities between the virus classes, potentially due to shared genetic features that led to the model’s ambiguous interpretation. Figure 8 d) presents the confusion matrix for the SVM, which also faced challenges in accurately classifying a SARS-CoV-2 sample. On the test data, the SVM recorded slightly lower metrics compared to its training performance, with an accuracy of 99.50%, precision of 99.43%, recall of 99.83%, and an F1-score of 99.62%.

The same models previously utilized were applied to the temporal analysis data under the same training conditions as the previous phase. The performance metrics values for all models in this experiment can be viewed in Table 3.

Similar to the outcomes observed with spectral data analysis, all models demonstrated robust performance across all evaluated metrics, with accuracy, recall, precision, and F1-score ranging between 99.5% and 99.9%. However, the RF model exhibited slightly lower accuracy than the other models, yet it still managed to accurately identify a high percentage of actual positive instances. The standard deviation values associated with model training, reflecting accuracy, were 0.01430 for the DT, 0.00546 for RF, and 0.00357 for both KNN and SVM. KNN and SVM displayed identical standard deviation values, indicating consistent accuracy throughout their training. DT showed the highest standard deviation (0.01430), suggesting a more significant fluctuation in its accuracy than the other models.

The confusion matrices for the test dataset concerning temporal data are depicted in Figure 9. In contrast to the spectral data results, DT inaccurately classified samples from the MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 classes, achieving accuracy, recall, precision, and F1-score of 99%, 96.09%, 99.51%, and 97.61%, respectively. Like the spectral analysis findings, RF and KNN accurately classified all samples, reaching peak performance metrics for the test data. Conversely, SVM misclassified a single sample (as shown in Figure 9 d)), achieving an accuracy of 99.43% on its test data.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 9:

Confusion matrices for virus classification using temporal features. Each panel (a) through (d) corresponds to a different machine learning model—RF, kNN, DT, and SVM—and displays the predictive accuracy for six virus classes.

The evaluated models, DT, RF, KNN, and SVM, exhibited outstanding performance in a multiclass classification challenge involving six virus types from the Coronaviridae family, including SARS-CoV-2. With performance metrics exceeding 99%, these results underscore the proficiency of these models in differentiating among the various viral subtypes within the test datasets, as illustrated in Figure 7. This analytical representation enabled the identification of distinct characteristics among the evaluated classes despite their shared viral family lineage. It demonstrates that the employed genomic sequence processing technique effectively retains the unique attributes of each subgroup, affirming the method’s capability to accurately capture and represent the genetic diversity within the Coronaviridae family.

The remarkable proficiency of RF and KNN in accurately classifying all samples within the test data underscores their effectiveness, especially given the genetic similarities among the viral subtypes. While achieving accuracy and precision rates above 99%, the DT model experienced a minor reduction in recall and F1-score compared to RF and KNN. This indicates a potential limitation in its capacity to identify all positive cases, a capability that is vitally important in clinical scenarios where accurately distinguishing between various viral variants is critical for determining the correct treatment and intervention strategies. The spectral data analysis observed the highest training metrics and lowest standard deviation values, raising questions about the SVM’s ability to generalize. Across both spectral and temporal analyses, KNN and RF maintained low and consistent standard deviation values, aligning closely with the test data metrics. Interestingly, both SVM and DT misclassified a SARS-CoV-2 sample as belonging to the Beta-CoV-1 class. A closer examination of the spatial distribution of samples through principal component analysis (Figure 7) reveals a SARS-CoV-2 sample positioned near the Beta-CoV-1 class in both temporal and spectral domains. This proximity highlights the models’ nuanced understanding and utilization of characteristic data to make precise predictions despite the challenges presented by the genetic similarities among viruses.

Among studies utilizing ML models like K-KNN, SVM, RF, DT, and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) for addressing SARS-CoV-2 viral classification challenges, accuracy rates spanned from 67% to 98%. This range under-scores the adaptability and efficiency of these models in viral classification endeavors Dlamini et al. [2020], Singh et al. [2021b], Habib et al. [2020]. Specifically, in Dlamini et al. [2020], a perfect 100% performance across all metrics was observed for binary classification tasks among viruses of distinct species such as dengue, Ebola, tuberculosis, and some coronaviruses. This outcome was anticipated, given the significant phylogenetic differences between these groups. However, when extending the classification to a multiclass framework involving viruses from the same species but different continents, accuracy dropped to only 67.5%. This decline highlights the inherent challenges in differentiating between genetically similar entities.

While achieving outstanding performance metrics, the study utilized dinucleotide frequencies to characterize the virus, potentially limiting the model’s sensitivity in specific experiments. The research conducted by Singh et al. [2021b] employed 1,582 cDNA sequences from human, mammalian, and avian coronaviruses, alongside digital signal processing techniques, to undertake a binary classification task distinguishing between SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 samples. This analysis involved 615 SARS-CoV-2 and 967 non-SARS-CoV-2 samples, applying KNN, SVM, DT, and RF models. The Random Forest model exhibited the highest precision, achieving 98% for the training set and 97.47% for the test set, indicating superior performance. In contrast, the SVM showed reduced capacity for generalization. Notably, despite RF recording the third lowest performance in our investigation, the SVM demonstrated accuracy exceeding 99% for training and test datasets, showcasing its practical application in viral classification tasks.

In their study, Habib et al. [2020] tackled a multiclass classification challenge involving the same viral subtypes discussed in this paper, leveraging genomic sequences for analysis. They utilized a DL approach, specifically a Multi-layer Perceptron classifier, to achieve precision and recall metrics ranging from 1 to 0.99. While potent in its predictive capabilities, this DL model incurs a significantly higher computational cost than traditional ML techniques. A total of 1925 genome sequences were analyzed, with data preprocessing employing a natural language processing (NLP) method. This method converts textual information into a vector, relying on the frequency (count) of each word appearing in the text. While effective in many contexts, this approach may pose challenges in accurately capturing viral mutations, as the evolutionary dynamics of viruses can alter their genomic sequences.

In their investigation, Murugaiah and Ganesan [2022] employed a signal processing technique for preprocessing to classify seven coronavirus strains, analyzing 1000 data samples across six different classifiers. The models evaluated included the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Artificioal Neural Network (ANN), KNN, and SVM, with the latter two yielding the most impressive accuracy rates of 97.96%, 93.60%, 92.80%, and 91.84%, respectively. A separate study by Randhawa et al. [2020] utilized six ML algorithms to classify entities at various taxonomic levels, achieving an outstanding 98.1% accuracy with the SVM model for classifying between four genera, based on a dataset comprising only 208 sequences from the coronaviridae family. However, the relatively small dataset size may pose challenges in terms of model generalization and performance across broader applications.

Numerous studies on multiclass classification within the coronaviridae family’s viral subtypes have leveraged the same database as this current investigation, showcasing results surpassing 90% accuracy. These studies predominantly utilized DL methodologies or concentrated on determining the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 Singh et al. [2021b], Tampuu et al. [2019], Murugaiah and Ganesan [2022], Dlamini et al. [2020]. Among these, the technique proposed in this paper achieved superior and more consistent outcomes, with Habib et al. [2020] being a notable exception, where a 100% accuracy was reached for the same classification challenge using DL approaches. Despite their effectiveness, DL techniques are known for their significant computational demands, surpassing those of more straightforward ML methods like KNN, SVM, and RF. Furthermore, DL models often necessitate larger datasets for training or more detailed representations of the viral genomes to perform optimally.

Overall, the selection of preprocessing techniques such as frequency-based methods, GSP, NLP, and the approach proposed in this study (Dlamini et al. [2020], Habib et al. [2020], Murugaiah and Ganesan [2022]) might not fully capture the intricacies involved in classifying viruses within the same species. For a more equitable assessment, additional factors should be considered, including the preprocessing time of sequences and models and the often omitted details of model hyperparameters, which are crucial for enabling the replication and testing of methodologies. Enhancing the model’s generalization capability necessitates an expansion of the dataset size, particularly for underrepresented virus subtypes. Nonetheless, open genomic databases face a notable constraint: they predominantly feature sequences related to SARS-CoV-2 due to the pandemic, resulting in a scarcity of sequences for other coronaviridae family subtypes. This significant limitation must be considered when interpreting the findings and applying these methodologies to broader and more complex classification challenges, such as distinguishing viruses across different taxonomic levels.