Advances in structural genomics

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 390-399

  Teichmann, Sarah A ^a   Chothia, Cyrus ^a   Gerstein, Mark ^b  

^a MRC LABORATORY OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAENORHABDITIS; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; GENE DUPLICATION; GENOME; MYCOPLASMA GENITALIUM; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FAMILY; PROTEIN FOLDING; REVIEW;

CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS; MYCOPLASMA GENITALIUM;

EID: 0033150825     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-440X(99)80053-0     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Zarembinski TI, Hung L-W, Muller-Dieckmann H-J, Kim K-K, Yokota H, Kim R, Kim S-H: Structure-based assignment of the biochemical function of a hypothetical protein: A test case for structural genomics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999, 95:15189-15193. This paper reports the first structure determined by a structural genomics project, that of protein MJ0577 from the hyperthermophile M. jannaschii. The gene is a representative of a family of hypothetical proteins and the structure shows an ATP-binding pocket and, possibly, a dimerisation interface.
2. Terwilliger TC, Waldo G, Peat TS, Newman JM, Chu K, Berendzen J: Class-directed structure determination: Foundation for a protein structure initiative. Protein Sci 1998, 7:1851-1856.
3. Shapiro L, Lima CD: The Argonne structural genomics workshop: Lamaze class for the birth of a new science. Structure 1998, 6:265-267.
4. Fraser CM, Gocayne JD, White O, Adams MD, Clayton RA, Fleischmann RD, Bult CJ, Kerlavage AR, Sutton G, Kelley JM: The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium. Science 1995, 270:349-548.
5. Pearson WR, Lipman DJ: Improved tools for biological sequence comparison. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1988, 85:2444-2448.
6. Smith TF, Waterman MS: Identification of common molecular subsequences. J Mol Biol 1981, 147:195-197.
7. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipmann DJ: Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990, 215:403-410.
8. 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.
9. Orengo CA, Michie AD, Jones S, Jones DJ, Swindells MB, Thornton JM: CATH - A hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure 1997, 5:1093-1108.
10. Scharf M, Schneider R, Casari G, Bork P, Valencia A, Ouzounis C, Sander C: In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology, Menlo Park, California: AAAI Press; 1994:348-353.
11. Frishman D, Mewes H-W: PEDANTic genome analysis. Trends Genet 1997, 13:415-416.
12. Frishman D, Mewes H-W: Protein structural classes in five complete genomes. Nat Struct Biol 1997, 4:626-628. After assigning structures to the sequences of five genomes using FASTA, secondary-structure prediction using the program PREDATOR was carried out on the remaining sequences. Similar proportions of protein structural classes are found in all genomes.
13. Gerstein M: A structural census of genomes: Comparing bacterial, eukaryotic and archaeal genomes in terms of protein structure. J Mol Biol 1997, 274:562-576. This paper compares the first genomes sequenced from each of the three kingdoms of life (yeast, H. influenzae and M. jannaschii) in terms of protein structure, focusing on supersecondary structure. It is shown that the most common folds shared among all three kingdoms have a remarkably similar supersecondary structure architecture, containing a central sheet with helices packed onto at least one face. In terms of predicted supersecondary structures, it is shown that yeast has a preponderance of consecutive strands and H. influenzae, consecutive helices.
14. Gerstein M: Patterns of protein-fold usage in eight microbial genomes: A comprehensive structural census. Proteins 1998, 33:518-534. This paper compares eight genomes in terms of their patterns of fold usage. It is shown that the genomes can be clustered into a plausible tree according to fold usage (rather than sequence similarity), that common (highly duplicated) folds are often superfolds and that folds can be ranked by expression, as well as by duplication. Membrane protein folds were surveyed and were also found to be fairly similar among the genomes.
15. Gerstein M: How representative are the known structures of the proteins in a complete genome? A comprehensive structural census. Fold Des 1998, 3:497-512. This paper describes how representative the known structures (from the PDB) are of the proteins encoded by a complete genome. It was found that proteins in the genomes differ in terms of length (being longer than PDB proteins) and composition (having more lysine, isoleucine, aspargine and glutamine and less cysteine and tryptophan). A procedure for segmenting genome sequences into various regions (known structure, TM helices etc) was introduced and secondary structure was predicted for 'uncharacterised regions'. These are found to be more helical than proteins in the PDB, but have a rather constant secondary-structure content, despite their differences in amino acid composition.
16. 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. See annotation to [17•].
17. Park J, Karplus K, Barrett C, Hughey R, Haussler D, Hubbard T, Chothia, C: Sequence comparisons using multiple sequences detect twice as many remote homologues as pairwise methods. J Mol Biol 1998, 284:1201-1210. This paper, together with [16•], describes assessments of sequence comparison procedures. [16•] deals with pairwise comparisons and [17•] discusses comparisons that use multiple sequences. Their relative and absolute success was assessed, as well as the accuracy of their scoring schemes. To find the relationships among homologous sequences with identities of less than 30%, the hidden Markov model procedure SAM-T98 does somewhat better than PSI-BLAST and both do about three times better than pairwise comparisons. All the methods, however, fail to find a significant fraction of distant relationships.
18. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang JH, ZHang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ: Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997, 25:3389-3402. This paper describes the PSI-BLAST program, which has played a major role in the assignment of structures to genome sequences.
19. Huynen M, Doerks T, Eisenhaber F, Orengo C, Sunyaev S, Yuan Y, Bork P: Homology-based fold predictions for Mycoplasma genitalium proteins. J Mol Biol 1998, 280:323-326. [URL: http://dove.embl-heidelberg.de/3D/] See annotation to [21••].
20. Teichmann SA, Park J, Chothia C: Structural assignments to the Mycoplasma genitalium proteins show extensive gene duplication and domain rearrangement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:14658-14663. [URL: http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/genomes/MG_strucs.html] See annotation to [21••].
21. Wolf YI, Brenner SE, Bash PA, Koonin EV: Distribution of protein folds in the three superkingdoms of life. Genome Res 1999, 9:17-26. [URL: ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/koonin/ FOLDS/index.html] Papers [19••-21••] describe the large-scale assignment of structures to sequences from genomes using the PSI-BLAST program. Huynen et al. [19••] and Teichmann et al. [20••] assigned structures to MG sequences. Wolf et al. [21••] assigned structures to sequences from 13 genomes. Huynen et al. [19••] also described a calibration of the parameters used in PSI-BLAST. Teichmann et al. [20••] discuss the implications of their matches on the domain structure, gene duplications and major families in MG. Wolf et al. [21••] list the major protein folds in the matched sequences of 13 genomes.
22. Holm L, Sander C: Removing near-neighbour redundancy from large protein sequence collections. Bioinformatics 1998, 14:423-429.
23. Jaroszewski L, Rychlewski L, Zhang BH, Godzik A: Fold prediction by a hierarchy of sequence, threading and modelling methods. Protein Sci 1998, 7:1431-1440.
24. Rychlewski L, Zhang B, Godzik A: Fold and function predictions for Mycoplasma genitalium proteins. Fold Des 1998, 3:229-238. [URL: http://cape6.scripps.edu/leszek/genome/cgi-bin/genome.pl?mp] The authors describe the assignment of folds to MG genome sequences using a profile-to-profile matching method. Function predictions are made for some MG proteins without functional annotations using their homology to E. coli proteins.
25. Sanchez R, Sali A. Large-scale protein structure modeling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:13597-13602. This was the first attempt at making three-dimensional models of as many sequences as possible for an entire genome. This was possible for 17% of the yeast genome. Making homology models for all of the sequences in a genome is one of the aims of structural genomics projects.
26. Goffeau A, Barrell BG, Bussey H, Davis RW, Dujon B, Feldmann H, Galibert F, Hoheisel JD, Jacq C, Johnston M: Life with 6000 genes. Science 1996, 274:546.
27. Finkelstein AV, Reva BA: A search for the most stable folds of protein chains. Nature 1991, 351:497-499.
28. Sippl MJ, Weitckus S: Detection of native-like models for amino acid sequences of unknown three-dimensional structure in a database of known protein conformations. Proteins 1992, 13:258-271.
29. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM: A new approach to protein fold recognition. Nature 1992, 358:86-89.
30. 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. [URL: http://www.doe-mbi.ucla.edu/people/frsvr/preds/MG/MG.html] This was the first paper to assign structures to a complete genome. A fold recognition method developed by the group was calibrated and applied to the MG genome. An estimate of the time and the number of new structures needed for the complete assignment of this genome was made.
31. Grandori R: Systematic fold recognition analysis of the sequences encoded by the genome of Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Protein Eng 1998, 11:1129-1135.
32. Frishman D, Argos P: Seventy-five percent accuracy in protein secondary structure prediction. Proteins 1997, 27:329-335.
33. Garnier J, Gibrat JF, Robson B: GOR method for predicting protein secondary structure from an amino acid sequence. Methods Enzymol 1996, 266:540-553.
34. Goffeau A, Slonimski P, Nakai K, Risler JL: How many yeast genes code for membrane-spanning proteins? Yeast 1993, 9:691-702.
35. Rost B, Fariselli P, Casadio R, Sander C: EXTRA-REF: Prediction of helical transmembrane segments at 95% accuracy. Protein Sci 1995, 4:521-533.
36. Rost B: PHD: Predicting one-dimensional protein secondary structure by profile-based neural networks. Methods Enzymol 1996, 266:525-539.
37. Arkin I, Brunger A, Engelman D: Are there dominant membrane protein families with a given number of helices? Proteins 1997, 28:465-466.
38. Boyd D, Schierle C, Beckwith J: How many membrane proteins are there? Protein Sci 1998, 7:201-205.
39. Jones DT: Do transmembrane protein superfolds exist? FEBS Lett 1998, 423:281-285.
40. Wallin E, von Heijne G: Genome-wide analysis of integral membrane proteins from eubacterial, archaean, and eukaryotic organisms. Protein Sci 1998, 7:1029-1038.
41. Brenner SE, Barken D, Levitt M: The PRESAGE database for structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res 1999, 27:251-253. The database PRESAGE is a repository of the structural assignments made for proteome sequences. It is likely to be a useful resource of information for those interested in structural genomics and is on the World Wide Web at http://presage.stanford.edu/.
42. Rossmann MG, Moras D, Olsen KW: Chemical and biological evolution of a nucleotide-binding protein. Nature 1974, 250:194-199.
43. Riley M, Labedan B: Protein evolution viewed through Escherichia coli protein sequences: Introducing the notion of a structural segment of homology, the module. J Mol Biol 1997, 268:857-868. This paper was the first to show that the multidomain character of many protein structures is also common to many proteins in genomes.
44. Chothia C: One thousand families for the molecular biologist. Nature 1992, 357:543-544.
45. Labedan B, Riley M: Widespread protein sequence similarities: Origins of E. coli genes. J Bacteriol 1995, 177:1585-1588.
46. Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Murzin A, Chothia C: At least one third of the proteins in Haemophilus influenzae arose from gene duplications. Nature 1995, 378:140.
47. Koonin EV, Tatusov RL, Rudd KE: Sequence similarity analysis of Escherichia coli proteins: Functional and evolutionary implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995 92:11921-11925.
48. Koonin EV, Mushegian AR, Galperin MY, Walker DR: Comparison of archeael and bacterial genomes: Computer analysis of protein sequences predicts novel functions and suggests a chimeric origin for archaea. Mol Microbiol 1997, 25:619-637.
49. Chothia C, Hubbard T, Brenner S, Barns H, Murzin A: Protein folds in the all-β and all-α classes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 1997, 26:597-627.
50. Gerstein M, Levitt M: A structural census of the current population of protein sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997, 94:11911-11916.
51. Krogh A, Brown M, Mian IS, Sjolander K, Haussler D: Hidden Markov models in computational biology - applications to protein modelling. J Mol Biol 1994, 235:1501-1531.
52. Eddy SR: Profile hidden Markov models. Bioinformatics 1998, 14:755-763.
53. Gerstein M, Hegyi H: Comparing microbial genomes in terms of protein structure: Surveys of a finite parts list. FEMS Microbiol Rev 1998, 22:277-304.
54. Wootton JC, Federhen S: Analysis of compositionally biased regions in sequence databases. Methods Enzymol 1996, 266:554-571.
55. Park J, Teichmann SA: DIVCLUS: An automatic method in the GEANFAMMER package that finds homologous domains in single-and multi-domain proteins. Bioinformatics 1998, 14:144-150.
56. Mushegian AR, Koonin EV: A minimal gene set for cellular life derived by comparison of complete bacterial genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996, 93:10268-10273.
57. Jones DT: GenTHREADER: An efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. J Mol Biol 1999, 287:797-815. This paper describes structural assignments to MG using a combined sequence alignment and threading method.