Progress in protein structure prediction: Assessment of CASP3

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 368-373

  Sternberg, Michael J E ^a   Bates, Paul A ^a   Kelley, Lawrence A ^a   Maccallum, Robert M ^a  

^a IMPERIAL CANCER RESEARCH FUND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; MOLECULAR MODEL; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; REVIEW;

EID: 0033150685     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-440X(99)80050-5     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Koehl P, Levitt M: A brighter future for protein structure prediction. Nat Struct Biol 1999, 6:108-111. A complementary report on the CASP3 meeting.
2. Bates PA, Jackson RM, Sternberg MJE: Model building by comparison: A combination of expert knowledge and computer automation. Proteins Suppl 1997, 1:59-67.
3. Johnson MS, Srinivasan N, Sowdhamini R, Blundell TL; Knowledge-based protein modeling. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 1994, 29:1-68.
4. Fischer D, Eisenberg D: Protein fold recognition using sequence-derived predictions. Protein Sci 1996, 5:947-955.
5. Dunbrack RL, Cohen FE: Bayesian statistical analysis of protein side-chain rotamer preferences. Protein Sci 1997, 6:1661-1681.
6. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ: Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A new generation of protein data base search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997, 25:3389-3402.
7. Sippl MJ, Weitckus S: Detection of native-like models for amino acid sequences of unknown three-dimensional structure in a data base of known protein conformations. Proteins 1992, 13:258-271.
8. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM: A new approach to protein fold recognition. Nature 1992, 358:86-89.
9. Bryant SH: Evaluation of threading specificity and accuracy. Proteins 1996, 26:172-185.
10. Karplus K, Barrett C, Hughey R: Hidden Markov models for detecting remote protein homologies. Bioinformatics 1998, 14:846-856. A new hidden Markov method (SAM-T98) is described that recognises protein homologues. The program is bench-marked on the SCOP database (see [13]). SAM-T98 was successfully used for fold recognition in CASP3 by Karplus and co-workers.
11. Matsuo Y, Nishikawa K: Protein structural similarities predicted by a sequence-structure compatibility method. Protein Sci 1994, 3:2055-2063.
12. Russell RB, Copley RR, Barton GJ: Protein fold recognition by mapping predicted secondary structures. J Mol Biol 1996, 259:349-365.
13. Hubbard TJP, Ailey B, Brenner SE, Murzin AG, Chothia C: SCOP: A structural classification of proteins database. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:254-256.
14. Ortiz AR, Kolinski A, Skolnick J: Fold assembly of small proteins using Monte Carlo simulations driven by restraints derived from multiple sequence alignments. J Mol Biol 1998, 277:419-448. An ab initio approach for predicting the fold of small proteins is described. Information from multiple sequence alignments was used to identify correlated mutations and the secondary structure was predicted using PHD. Monte Carlo simulations were then performed on lattice representations of the protein and the predicted structures were then evaluated using a simple energy-type scoring function. This approach formed the basis of the successful ab initio modelling carried out by Skolnick's group at CASP3.
15. Lee J, Scheraga HA, Rackovsky S: New optimization method for conformational energy calculations on polypeptides, conformational space annealing. J Comput Chem 1997, 18:1222-1232.
16. Liwo A, Pincus MR, Wawak RJ, Rackovsky S, Oldziej S, Scheraga HA: A united-residue force field for off-lattice protein-structure simulations. II paramenterization of local interactions and determination of the weights. J Comput Chem 1997, 18:874-887.
17. Osguthorpe DJ: Analysis of the predicted structures of domain 1 of protein g3 (T0030) and NK-lysin (T0042). Proteins Suppl 1997, 1:172-178.
18. Simons KT, Kooperberg C, Huang E, Baker D: Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J Mol Biol 1997, 268:209-225. A new scoring function for recognising native-like folds from alternatives is described. The function incorporates both sequence-dependent (such as the hydrophobic effect) and sequence-independent features (such as the assembly of β strands into β sheets). This function was applied to score the structures that were generated from the fragments described in [19]. The scoring function was used in the successful ab initio predictions of Baker's group during CASP3.
19. Simons KT, Ruczinski I, Kooperberg C, Fox BA, Bystroff C, Baker D: Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins. Proteins 1999, 34:82-95.
20. Rost B, Sander C: Prediction of protein secondary structure at better than 70% accuracy. J Mol Biol 1993, 232:584-599.
21. Brenner SE, Chothia C, Hubbard TJP: Assessing sequence comparison methods with reliable structurally identified distant evolutionary relationships. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:6073-6078. This paper describes the use of the SCOP database of known protein folds in evaluating the coverage and error rate in detecting remote protein homologues using standard sequence methods. Several pairwise sequence homology algorithms are bench-marked.
22. Park J, Karplus K, Barrett C, Hughey R, Haussler D, Hubbard T, Chothia C: Sequence comparisons using multiple sequences detect three times as many remote homologues as pairwise methods. J Mol Biol 1998, 284:1201-1210. This paper describes the use of the SCOP database of known protein folds in evaluating the coverage and error rate in detecting remote protein homologues. The PSI-BLAST algorithm and the hidden Markov model method SAM-T98, which use multiple sequences, are shown to have three times the coverage compared with a sensitive pairwise method that uses dynamic programming. This paper demonstrates that algorithms that aim to detect remote protein homologues must now be bench-marked against multiple sequence approaches in order to demonstrate their utility. Approaches that previously were shown to be improvements over pairwise dynamic programming must be bench-marked again.
23. Fischer D, Eisenberg D: Assigning folds to the proteins encoded by the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997, 94:11929-11934.
24. Teichmann SA, Park J, Chothia C: Structural assignments to the Mycoplasma genitalium proteins show extensive gene duplications and domain rearrangements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:14658-14663. The program PSI-BLAST was used to assign folds to the Mycoplasma genitalium genome. The extent of gene duplication in the genome was evaluated using the SCOP database, which groups folds into homologous families.
25. Huynen M, Doerks T, Eisenhaber F, Orengo C, Sunyaev S, Yuan Y, Bork P: Homology-based fold recognition for Mycoplasma genitalium proteins. J Mol Biol 1998, 280:323-326.
26. Gerstein M: Patterns of protein-fold usage in eight microbial genomes: A comprehensive structural census. Proteins 1998, 33:518-534. Eight microbial genomes were analysed using FASTA to identify homology to proteins of known structure. The comparative frequencies of different fold types in the different genomes are reported and discussed. Trees were constructed in order to group genomes in terms of shared folds. This paper highlights structure-based comparative genomics.
27. Fetrow JS, Godzik A, Skolnick J: Functional analysis of the Escherichia coli genome using the sequence-to-structure-to-function paradigm: Identification of proteins exhibiting the glutaredoxin/thioredoxin disulfide oxidoreductase activity. J Mol Biol 1998, 282:703-711.
28. Rychlewski L, Zhang B, Godzik A: Fold and function predictions for Mycoplasma genitalium proteins. Fold Des 1998, 3:229-238. The authors describe the use of multiple sequences to enhance the recognition of remote homologues beyond that obtained from PSI-BLAST. The algorithm was applied to assign folds and function to genes in Mycoplasma genitalium.
29. Sanchez R, Sali A: Large-scale protein structure modeling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:13597-13602. Three-dimensional structures were constructed for 1071 (i.e. 17% of) yeast proteins using comparative modelling. The approach is fully automatic, highlighting the need to avoid manual intervention when considering protein structure prediction for genome analysis.
30. Orengo CA, Pearl FMG, Bray JE, Todd AE, Martin AC, LoConte L, Thornton JM: The CATH database provides insights into protein structure/function relationships. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:275-279.
31. Holm L, Sander C: Protein folds and families: Sequence and structure alignments. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:244-247.
32. Marchler, Bauer A, Address KJ, Chappey C, Geer L, Madej T, Matsuo Y, Wang Y, Bryant SH: MMDB: Entrez's 3D structure database. Nucleic Acid Res 1999, 27:240-243.
33. Russell RB, Sasieni PD, Sternberg MJE: Supersites within superfolds - binding site similarity in the absence of homology. J Mol Biol 1999, 282:903-918. The paper introduces the term supersite to denote that proteins that share a common fold (i.e. a superfold) as a result of convergent evolution also share a common location on the fold responsible for the recognition of other molecules. Analysis identified the superfold types that have supersites, including some previously unrecognised examples, and those superfolds that do not have supersites. The implications for assigning function from structure are discussed
34. Feng ZK, Sippl MJ: Optimum superimposition of protein structures - ambiguities and implications. Fold Des 1996, 1:123-132.