From protein structure to function

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 374-382

  Orengo, Christine A ^a   Todd, Annabel E ^a   Thornton, Janet M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; DATA BASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; REVIEW; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

EID: 0033150686     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-440X(99)80051-7     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Bairoch A: The enzyme databank in 1999. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:310-311.
2. Bateman A, Birney E, Durbin R, Eddy SR, Finn RD, Sonnhammer ELL: Pfam 3.1: 1313 multiple alignments and profile hmms match the majority of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:260-262.
3. Hofmann K, Bucher P, Falquet L, Bairoch A: The PROSITE database, its status in 1999. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:215-219.
4. Attwood TK, Flower DR, Lewis AP, Mabey JE, Morgan SR, Scordis P, Selley JN, Wright W: PRINTS prepares for the new millennium. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:220-225.
5. Mewes HW, Heumann K, Kaps A, Mayer K, Pfeiffer F, Stocker S, Frishman D: MIPS: A database for genomes and protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:44-48.
6. Pearson WR, Lipman DJ: Improved tools for biological sequence comparison. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 85:2444-2448.
7. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ: Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990, 215:403-410.
8. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ: Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acid Res 1998, 25:3389-3402.
9. Holm L, Sander C: Searching protein structure databases has come of age. Proteins 1994, 19:165-173.
10. Orengo CA: Classification of protein folds. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1994, 4:429-440.
11. Bernstein FC, Koetzle TF, Williams GJB, Meyer EF Jr, Brice MD, Rodgers JR, Kennard O, Shimanouchi T, Tasumi M: The protein data bank: A computer based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol 1997, 112:535-542.
12. Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C: SCOP - A structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J Mol Biol 1995, 247:536-540.
13. Orengo CA, Michie AD, Jones S, Jones DT, Swindells MB, Thornton JM: CATH - A hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure 1997, 5:1093-1108.
14. Holm L, Sander C: Mapping the protein universe. Science 1996, 273:595-602.
15. Russell RB, Barton GJ: Multiple sequence alignment from tertiary structure comparison: Assignment of global and residue confidence levels. Proteins 1992, 14:309-323. [URL: http://circinus.ebi.ac.uk:8080/3Dee/help/help_intro.html]
16. Mizuguchi K, Deane CM, Blundell TL, Overington JP: HOMSTRAD: A database of protein structure alignments for homologous families. Protein Sci 1998, 7:2469-2471.
17. Hogue CWV, Ohkawa H, Bryant SH: WWW-Entrez and the molecular modelling database. Trends Biochem Sci 1996, 21:226-229.
18. Pennisi L: X-ray crystallography - taking a structured approach to understanding proteins. Science 1998, 279:978-979.
19. Orengo CA, Jones DT, Thornton JM: Protein superfamilies and domain superfolds. Nature 1994, 372:631-634.
20. Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (NC-IUBMB): Enzyme Nomenclature. New York: Academic Press; 1992.
21. Holm L, Sander C: Decision support system for the evolutionary classification of protein structures. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology. Edited by Gaasterland T, Karp P, Karplus K, Ouzounis C, Sander C, Valencia A. Menlo Park, California: AAAI Press; 1997:140-146.
22. Orengo CA, Pearl FMG, Bray JE, Todd AE, Martin AC, LO Conte L, Thornton JM: The CATH database provides insights into protein structure/function relationships. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:275-279.
23. Laskowski RA, Hutchinson EG, Michie AD, Wallace AC, Jones ML, Thornton JM: PDBsum: A web-based database of summaries and analyses of all PDB structures. Trends Biochem Sci 1997, 22:488-490.
24. Martin ACR, Orengo CA, Hutchinson EG, Jones S, Karmirantzou M, Laskowski RA, Mitchell JBO, Taroni C, Thornton JM: Protein folds and functions. Structure 1998, 6:875-884. A statistical analysis of the correlation between protein function and the class, architecture and topology of the structure, based on proteins classified in the CATH domains database. For the enzymes, the EC classification shows little correlation with structure, that is, enzymes with the same EC number may exhibit different folds and vice versa. For several of the common biological ligands, however, there was a distinct bias towards certain protein classes, as defined by the stereochemical requirements for binding the ligand. Apart from this class bias, however, the binding site could be constituted very differently, with different topologies providing the complementarity in shape and necessary hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions.
25. Brenner SE, Chothia C, Hubbard TJP, Murzin AG: Understanding protein structure: Using SCOP for fold interpretation. Methods Enzymol 1996, 266:635-643.
26. Russell RB, Sasieni PD, Sternberg MJE: Supersites within superfolds. Binding site similarity in the absence of homology. J Mol Biol 1998, 282:903-918. A statistical analysis of structural similarities among analogous proteins in the SCOP database (i.e. proteins lacking any significant sequence similarity, but possessing the same overall fold). The method identifies structural locations that have a statistically significant tendency to bind substrates (supersites). In addition to well-known sites, for example, β/α (TIM) barrels, the method identified three potentially new superfolds containing identified 'supersites': ferredoxin-like folds, four-helical bundles and double-stranded β helices. The method also quantifies binding site similarities among homologous proteins. Their analysis suggested that 24% of new structures will have analogous similarities associated with a supersite, for which more than half will have binding site information correctly predicted. On a more cautionary note, however, they found that, for many superfolds, there was no correlation among binding sites.
27. Russell RB, Sternberg MJ: Two new examples of protein structural similarities within the structure-function twilight zone. Protein Eng 1997, 10:333-338. An illustration of the problems associated with the structure/function 'twilight' zone. Two structural similarities are reported, accompanied by some faint functional similarity. Uteroglobin and the CAP domain of haloalkane dehalogenase possess 47 structurally equivalent residues (>60%), despite having no sequence similarity. Both bind hydrophobic ligands at a similar site. Similarly, the β-barrel domains of glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase and domain 1 of glutamine synthetase possess no significant sequence similarity, but their structural similarity and the similarity in the location of their binding sites and functionally important residues suggest a common ancestor.
28. Todd AE, Orengo CA, Thornton JM: DOMPLOT: A program to generate schematic diagrams of the structural domain organisation within proteins, annotated by ligand contacts. Protein Eng 1999, in press. This paper describes a program (DOMPLOT) for automatically generating schematic linear representations of protein chains in terms of their structural domains. The chains are represented as a set of linked boxes, each box corresponding to all or part of a structural domain. The output can be annotated with PROSITE information and ligand interactions. The program has found a number of applications. The output gives a simple representation of the results of more complex atomic comparisons at the domain level, facilitating the comparison of many structures. It has also been adapted to read multiple structural alignment files generated by CORA [30] and, with ligand annotations, it allows for the immediate identification of binding site conservation. A DOMPLOT server is available at http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/domplot.
29. Tanaka T, Saha SK, Tomomori C, Ishima R, Liu D, Tong KI, Park H, Dutta R, Qin L, Swindells MB et al.: NMR structure of the histidine kinase domain of the E. Coli osmosensor EnvZ. Nature 1998, 396:88-92. The structural comparison of the histidine kinase domain of the E. coli omosensor EnvZ with heat-shock protein 90 and DNA gyrase B reveals interesting topological similarities, including the conservation of an unusual left-handed βαβ connection. The structural match confirmed a possible relationship that was first identified by low PSI-BLAST scores and revealed common ATP-binding regions and similar locations for conserved catalytic residues.
30. Orengo CA: CORA - Topological fingerprints for protein structural families. Protein Sci 1999, 8:699-715.
31. HoLm L, Sander C: New structure, novel fold? Structure 1997, 5:165-171.
32. Holm L, Sander C: Enzyme HIT. Trends Biochem Sci 1997, 22:116-117.
33. Russell RB, Saqi MA, Sayle RA, Bates PA, Sternberg MJE: Recognition of analogous and homologous protein folds: Analysis of sequence and structure conservation. J Mol Biol 1997, 269:423-439.
34. Acharya KR, Ren JS, Stuart DI, Phillips DC, Fenna RE: Crystal structure of human α-lactalbumin at 1.7 å resolution. J Mol Biol 1991, 221:571-581.
35. Wistow GJ, Mulders JWM, Dejong W: The enzyme lactate dehydrogenase as a structural protein in avian and crocodilian lenses. Nature 1987, 326:622-624.
36. Holm L, Sander C: An evolutionary treasure: Unification of a broad set of amidohydrolases related to urease. Proteins 1997, 28:72-82. An interesting sequence and structure-based analysis that unifies a diverse set of amidohydrolases related to urease. Multiple structure alignment was used to identify a conserved active-site architecture that is common to three protein families. This distant evolutionary relationship was not detectable by one-dimensional sequence comparisons. Using a sequence space walk, the authors identified other relatives with 13 different functions supported by the same structural motif and discuss the implications for functional site evolution.
37. Murzin AG: How far divergent evolution goes in proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1998, 8:380-387.
38. Hasson MS, Schlichting I, Moulai J, Taylor K, Barrett W, Kenyon GL, Babbitt PC, Gerlt JA, Petsko GA, Ringe D: Evolution of an enzyme active site: The structure of a new crystal form of muconate lactonizing enzyme compared with mandelate racemase and enolase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:10396-10401. This paper presents a detailed structural comparison of the active sites of three members of the enolase superfamily - muconate lactonising enzyme, mandelate racemase and enolase - and provides useful insights into the evolution of enzyme catalysis. The authors found that the positions of catalytic atoms are almost invariant in the three structures, yet the residues that contain them are situated at different points in the fold and, despite positional conservation of functional groups, the identities and roles of the catalytic residues vary.
39. Hasson MS, Muscate A, McLeish MJ. Polovnikova LS, Gerlt JA, Kenyon GL, Petsko GA, Ringe D: The crystal structure of benzoylformate decarboxylase at 1.6 A resolution: Diversity of catalytic residues in thiamin diphosphate-dependent enzymes. Biochemistry 1998, 37:9918-9930. The crystal structure of benzoylformate decarboxylase is compared with those of other thiamin-phosphate-dependent enzymes. Similar patterns of conservation to those detected in the enolase superfamily (see [38••]) are observed. Residue conservation is restricted to residues directly interacting with the cofactor. Residues that are located at very different points in the primary sequence, however, contain functional groups that are positionally conserved with respect to the protein fold.
40. Martin JL: Thioredoxin - A fold for all reasons. Structure 1995, 3:245-250.
41. Juers DH, Huber RE, Matthews BW: Structural comparisons of TIM barrel proteins suggest functional and evolutionary relationships between β-galactosidase and other glycohydrolases. Protein Sci 1999, 8:122-136. Each of the five domains of β-galactosidase was scanned against the PDB using three different methods and, on the basis of the structural similarity and conservation of active-site residues of the third, TIM-barrel domain, the authors suggest that the protein is a member of the large superfamily of glycosyl hydrolases. The other four domains (including a jelly-roll domain and two fibronectm-type III domains) do not appear to play the typical functional roles that they exhibit in other contexts and have probably been recruited to structurally modify the active site cleft and improve its specificity for a smaller substrate.
42. Milburn D, Laskowski R, Thornton JM: Sequences annotated by structure: A tool to facilitate the use of structural information in sequence analysis. Protein Eng 1998, 11:855-859. This web-based server annotates a given sequence with information derived from its 3D structure, including secondary structure, ligand contacts, active-site residues (where available), hydrogen bonding to ligands and so on. When the structure of the protein is not known, the input sequence is searched against the PDB for homologues using FASTA. If matches are found, these are listed in order of significance and annotated as above. This tool provides a useful method for gathering together structural information on a family of proteins, given one member.
43. Thornton JM, Gardner SP: Protein motifs and database searching. Trends Biochem Sci 1989, 14:300-304.
44. Artymiuk PJ, Poirrette AR, Grindley HM, Rice DW, Willett P: A graph-theoretic approach to the identification of three-dimensional patterns of amino acid side-chains in protein structures. J Mol Biol 1994, 243:327-344.
45. Wallace AC, Laskowski RA, Thornton JM: Derivation of 3D coordinate templates for searching structural databases: Application to the Ser-His-Asp catalytic triads of the serine proteinases and lipases. Protein Sci 1996, 5:1001-1013.
46. Wallace AC, Borkakorti N, Thornton JM: TESS: A geometric hashing algorithm for deriving 3D coordinate templates for searching structural databases: Application to enzyme active-sites. Protein Sci 1997, 6:2308-2323. This paper presents a geometric hashing approach to searching for a predefined cluster of residues. The dataset of PDB entry files is preprocessed to create a file for each 'reference' amino acid sidechain, for example, the five-member histidine ring. These files are large, but can be searched very rapidly for hits against a defined template. The authors extend their previous work on the catalytic Ser-His-Asp triad [45] to explore several other functional sites. A preliminary database of 3D templates for a few active sites is also presented - PROCAT (http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/).
47. Kasuya A, Thornton JM: Three-dimensional structure analysis of PROSITE patterns. J Mol Biol 1999, 286:1673-1691. This paper addresses the problem of finding automated approaches for defining 3D templates for functional sites. The PDB is searched for matches to the PROSITE motif sequence library. Hits for the 20 most common motifs are then analysed to explore whether the sequence motifs adopt the same conformation in each hit. The data presented support the hypothesis that the coordinate data can discriminate between true and false hits. Thus, the 3D templates derived from PROSITE may provide a useful source of structural motifs for functional sites; however, an extension from the Cα template will be needed to identify recurrent sidechain motifs that occur on different frameworks.
48. Jonassen I, Eidhammer I, Taylor WR: Discovery of local packing motifs in protein structures. Proteins 1999, 34:206-219. A fast, pattern-matching method is described for identifying local packing motifs. The spatial neighbourhood of each residue is described as a string, allowing sequence pattern search methods to find patterns that are common to subsets of the strings. There are restrictions on the spatial position of each residue, the order along the chain and residue identity. Patterns identified were checked for spatially similar substructures. The method was tested on four different protein families - serine proteases, cupredoxins, cysteine proteinases and ferredoxins - and identified structural motifs that corresponded well with the known site information for these proteins. As a result of the constraints used, the method will be of most use in identifying common sites in homologous proteins.
49. Karlin S, Zhu Z-Y: Characterizations of diverse residue clusters in protein three-dimensional structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996, 93:8344-8349.
50. Karlin S, Zhu Z-Y: Clusters of charged residues in protein three-dimensional structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996, 93:8350-8355.
51. Kobayashi N, Go N: A method to search for similar protein local structures at ligand-binding sites and its application to adenine recognition. Eur Biophys J 1997, 26:135-144. The geometrical properties of protein active sites were captured using Delaunay tessellation to define the space near a given chemical moiety. All heavy atoms, including water, were considered in the selection of surrounding atoms. In order to compare similar sites in a pair of proteins, these spatial arrangements are translated and rotated so that the chemical moieties are superposed on each other. The method is not constrained by the sequentiality of the polypeptide chain and has been applied to identifying modes of nucleotide base recognition by proteins (see [52]).
52. Kobayashi N, Go N: ATP-binding proteins with different folds share a common ATP-binding structural motif. Nat Struct Biol 1997, 4:6-7.
53. Denessiouk KA, Lehtonen JV, Korpela T, Johnson MS: Two 'unrelated' families of ATP-dependent enzymes share extensive structural similarities about their cofactor binding sites. Protein Sci 1998, 7:1136-1146.
54. Kinoshita K, Sadanami K, Kidera A, Go N: Structural motif of phosphate-binding site common to various protein superfamilies: All-against-all structural comparison of protein-mononucleotide complexes. Protein Eng 1999, 12:11-14.
55. Russell RB: Identification of protein three-dimensional side-chain patterns: new examples of convergent evolution. J Mol Biol 1998, 279:1211-1227. This paper presents a new automated method for detecting recurring three-dimensional sidechain patterns in protein structures without any prior knowledge of the active site or binding site residues. A depth-first search algorithm detects all spatially adjacent groups of identical amino acids that are common to two proteins. The vast number of combinations is reduced by using knowledge derived from multiple sequence alignments to concentrate on conserved polar residues (i.e. those that are likely to be involved in functional sites). The statistical significance of any fit was assessed using a 'theoretical' distribution fitted to simulated data. The power of the method is illustrated using known examples (e.g. the His-Ser-Asp catalytic triad). More interestingly, an all-against-all comparison of known structures reveals several new examples of common sidechain patterns within different folds. This excellent paper facilitates the recognition of active sites from structures and sequence alignments.
56. 1 ribonuclease family.
57. Rosen M, Lin SL, Wolfson H, Nussinov R: Molecular shape comparisons in searches for active sites and functional similarity. Protein Eng 1998, 11:263-277.
58. Laskowski RA, Luscombe NM, Swindells MB, Thornton JM: Protein clefts in molecular recognition and function. Protein Sci 1996, 5:2438-2452.
59. Jones S, Thornton JM: Analysis of protein-protein interaction sites using surface patches. J Mol Biol 1997, 272:121-132.
60. Lo Conte L, Chothia C, Janin J: The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. J Mol Biol 1999, 285:2177-2198.
61. Jones S, Thornton JM: Prediction of protein-protein interaction sites using patch analysis. J Mol Biol 1997, 272:133-143.
62. Nayal M, Klebansky B, Fine R, Honig B: Molecular surface complementarity at protein-protein interfaces. Biophys J 1998, 74:A366.
63. Honig B: Protein fold recognition and functional assignment based on physical chemical principles. J Am Chem Soc 1998, 216:40-PHY.
64. Hendlich M, Rippmann F, Barnickel G, Hemm K, Aberer K: Relibase - an object-oriented comprehensive receptor-ligand database. Abstr Papers Am Chem 1996, 211:49-CINF.
65. Vondrasek J, van Buskirk P, Wlodawer A: Database of three-dimensional structures of HIV proteinases. Nat Struct Biol 1997, 4:8.
66. Freedman RB: Novel disulphide oxidoreductase in search of a function. Nat Struct Biol 1998, 5:531-532.
67. Ren B, Tibbelin G, de Pascale D, Rossi M, Bartolucci S, Ladenstein R: A protein disulphide oxidoreductase from archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus contains two thioredoxin fold units. Nat Struct Biol 1998, 5:602-611.
68. Yang F, Gustafson KR, Boyd MR, Wlodawer A: Crystal structure of Escherichia coli HdeA. Nat Struct Biol 1998, 5:763-764.