Structural genomics in the post-genomics era: The shapes of things to come

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 399-407

  Peat, Thomas S ^a   Newman, Janet M ^a  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Macromolecular crystallography; Molecular modeling; Nuclear magnetic resonance; Structural genomics; Structure based drug design

Indexed keywords

STRUCTURAL PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DRUG ISOLATION; DRUG RESEARCH; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENE STRUCTURE; GENE TECHNOLOGY; MOLECULAR CLONING; STRUCTURAL GENE; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

EID: 0033911224     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Fleischmann RD, Adams MD, White O, Clayton RA, Kirkness EF, Kertavage AR, Bull CJ, Tomb JF, Dougherty BA, Merrick JM, McKenney K, Sutton G, FitzHugh W, Fields C, Gocayne JD, Scott J, Shirley R, Liu L-l, Glodek A, Kelley JM, Weidman JF, Phillips CA, Spriggs T, Hedblom E, Cotton MD, Utterback TR, Hanna MC, Nguyen DT, Saudek DM, Brandon RC, Fine LD, Fritchman JL, Fuhrmann JL, Geohagen NSM, Gnehm CL, McDonald LA, Small KV, Fraser CM, Smith HO, Venter JC: Whole genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science (1995) 269:496-512.
2. The Institute for Genomics Research (TIGR), Rockville, MD, USA. http-J/www.tigr.org/tdb/mdb/mdb.html This link provides access to the TIGR database of microbial genomes.
3. Favello A, Millier L, Wilson RK: Genomic DNA sequencing methods. Methods Cell Biol (1995) 48:551-569.
4. Gooley AA, Packer NH: The importance of protein co- and post-translational modifications in proteome projects. In: Proteome Research: New Frontiers in Functional Genomics. Wilkins MR, Williams KL, Appel RD, Hochstrasser DF (Eds), Springer, Berlin, Germany (1997):65-91.
5. Ferre-D'Amare AR, Burley SK: Use of dynamic light scattering to assess crystallizability of macromolecules and macromolecular assemblies. Structure (1994) 2:357-359.
6. Sanchez R, Sali A: Comparative proteins structure modeling in genomics. J Comp Physiol (1999) 151:388-401.
7. For example, the Cyberlab C-200 robot, which can perform very complex crystallizations, httptfwww.gilson.com/cyber200.htm
8. Walsh MA, Dementieva I, Evans G, Sanishvili R, Joachimiak A: Taking MAD to the extreme: Ultrafast protein structure determination. Acta Crystallogr, D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:1168-1173.
9. Zimmerman DE, Kulikowski CA, Huang Y, Feng W, Tashiro M, Shimotakahara S, Chien C, Powers R, Montelione GT: Automated analysis of protein NMR assignments using methods from artificial intelligence. J Mol Biol (1997) 269:592-610.
10. Sanchez R, Sali A: Large-scale protein structure modeling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1998) 95:13597-13602. An impressive large-scale comparative modeling effort of all the homologous proteins in the yeast genome.
11. Mallick P, Goodwill KE, Fitz-Gibbon S, Miller JH, Eisenberg D: Selecting protein targets for structural genomics of Pyrobaculum aerophilum: Validating automated fold assignment methods by using binary hypothesis testing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2000) 97:2450-2455.
12. 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.
13. Rychlewski L, Zhang B, Godzik A: Fold and function predictions for Mycoplasma genitalium proteins. Folding Des (1998) 3:229-238. Describes a large-scale protein fold assignment of an entire genome.
14. Fischer D, Eisenberg D: Assigning folds to the proteins encoded by the genome of Mycoplasme genltalium. Proc A/a// Acad Sci USA (1997) 94:11929-11934. Describes the impressive effort of automatically assigning protein folds to as many proteins in a genome as is possible. Out of 468 proteins, 103 (22%) were assigned a fold with high confidence.
15. Grigoriev IV, Kim SH: Detection of protein fold similarity based on correlation of amino acid properties. Proc Acad Acad Sci USA (1999) 96:14318-14323.
16. Marcotte EM, Pellegrini M, Thompson MJ, Yeates TO, Eisenberg D: A combined algorithm for genome wide prediction of protein function. Nature (1999) 402:83-86. An example of the types of algorithms being developed to predict protein function independently of sequence homology. This combined algorithm groups proteins by RNA expression patterns, correlated evolution and patterns of domain fusion. This grouping allows 15% of the 2557 uncharacterized proteins in yeast to be assigned a general function.
17. Stawiski EW, Baucom AE, Lohr SC, Gregoret LM: Predicting protein function from structure: Unique structural features of proteases. Proc NatlAcad Sci USA (2000) 97:3954-3958.
18. Vogt G, Woell S, Argos P: Protein thermal-stability, hydrogen bonds, and ion-pairs. J Mol Biol (1997) 269:631-643.
19. Bull CJ, White O, Olsen GJ, Zhou L, Fleischmann RD, Sutton GG, Blake JA, Fitzgerald LM, Ciayton RA, Gocayne JD, Kerlavage AR, Dougherty BA, Tomb JF, Adams MD, Reich CI, Overbeek R, Kirkness EF, Weinstock KG, Merrick JM, Glodek A, Scott JL, Geoghagen NS, Venter JC: Complete genome of the methanogenlc archaeon, Methanococcus jannaschii. Science (1996) 273:1058-1073.
20. Fitz-Gibbon S, Choi AJ, Miller JH, Stetter KO, Simon Ml, Swanson R, Kim UJ: A fosmid-based genomic map and identification of 474 genes of the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrobaculum aerophilum. Extremophiles (1997) 1:36-51.
21. Smith DR, Doucette-Stamm LA, Deloughery C, Lee H, Dubois J, Aldredge T, Bashirzadeh R, Blakely D, Cook R, Gilbert K, Harrison D, Hoang L, Keagle P, Lumm W, Pothier B, Qiu D, Spadafora R, Vicaire R, Wang Y, Wierzbowski J, Gibson R, Jiwani N, Caruso A, Bush D, Safer H, Patwell D, Prabhakar S, McDougall S, Shimer G, Goyal A, Pietrokovksi S, Church GM, Daniels CJ, Mao Jl, Moiling J, Reeve JN: Complete genome sequence of Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum AH: Functional analysis and comparative genomics. J Bacteriol (1997) 179:7135-7155.
22. Eisenstein E, Gilliland GL, Herzberg O, Moult J, Orban J, Poljak RJ, Banerjei L, Richardson D, Howard AJ: Biological function made crystal clear - annotation of hypothetical proteins via structural genomics. Curr Opin Biotechnol (2000) 11:25-30. Describes the approach to be taken by the CARB-TIGR H influenzae structural genomics project.
23. 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. A well-written review explaining the benefits that a structural genomics project can offer, as well as the different approaches and research models a project can follow.
24. Orengo CA, Jones DT, Thomton JM: Protein superfamilies and domain superfolds. Nature (1994) 372:631-634.
25. Zhang C, DeLisi C: Estimating the number of protein folds. J Mol Biol (1998) 284:1301-1305.
26. Wang ZX: A re-estimation for the total numbers of protein folds and super-families. Protein Eng (1998) 11:621-626.
27. Govindarajan S, Recabarren R, Goldstein RA: Estimating the total number of protein folds. Proteins (1999) 35:408-414.
28. Brenner SE, Levitt M: Expectations from structural genomlcs. Protein Sci (2000) 9:197-200. An evaluation of the probable success structural genomics will have in finding new folds.
29. Fischer D: Rational structural genomics: Affirmative action for ORFans and the growth in our structural knowledge. Protein Eng (1999) 12:1029-1030. Gives a compelling argument for why structural genomics projects should focus on 'ORFans' - those proteins which have unknown function and no homology to any other proteins in any organism.
30. Burley SK, Almo SC, Bonanno JB, Capel M, Chance MR, Gaasterland T, Lin D, Sali A, Studier FW, Swaminathan S: Structural genomics: Beyond the human genome project. Nature Genet (1999) 23:151-157. A well thought out proposal for a structural genomics initiative. It also gives the NY-SGRC's initial results.
31. Dyda F, Hickman AB, Jenkins TM, Engelman A, Craigie R, Oavies DR: Crystal structure of the catalytic domain of HIV-1 integrase: Similarity to other polynucleotidyl transferases. Scfence(1994) 266:1981-1986.
32. Cort JR, Koonin EV, Bash PA, Kennedy MA: A phylogenetic approach to target selection for structural genomics: Solution structure of YciH. Nucleic Acids Res (1999) 27:4018-4027.
33. Peat TS, Newman J, Waldo GS, Berendzen J, Terwilliger TC: Structure of translation initiation factor 5A from Pyrobaculum aerophilum at 1.75 A resolution. Structure (1998) 6:1207-1214. Describes the first structure from the LANUUCLA effort (now the Consortium for Structural Genomics), which was one of the first structures determined for a structural genomics project.
34. Kirn KK, Kim R, Kim SH: Crystal structure of a small heatshock protein. Nature (1998) 394:595-599.
35. Kim R, Kim KK, Yokata H, Kim SH: Small heat shock protein of Methanococcus Jannaschii, a hyperthermophile. Proc NatlAcadSci USA (1998) 95:9129-9133.
36. Zarembiniski Tl, Hung LW, Mueller-Dieckmann HJ, Kim KK, Yokota H, Kim R, Kim SH: Structure-based assignment of the biochemical function of a hypothetical protein: A test case of structural genomics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1998) 95:15189-15193. Describes the structure determination of a protein of unknown function. The authors then derive the protein function by following structural clues and confirming their hypothesis by biochemical analysis.
37. Wang H, Boisvert D, Kim KK, Kim R, Kim SH: Crystal structure of a fibrillarin homologue from Methanococcus jannaschii, a hyperthermophile, at 1.6 A resolution. EMBO J (2000) 19:317-323.
38. Hwang KY, Chung JH, Kirn SH, Han YS, Cho Y: Structure-based identification of a novel NTPase from Methanococcus jannaschii. Nature Struct Biol (1999) 6:691 -696.
39. Wu N, Mo Y, Gao J, Pai EF: Electrostatic stress in catalysis: Structure and mechanism of the enzyme orotidine monophosphate decarboxylase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2000) 97:2017-2022. The first published structure from the University of Toronto Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum project. The paper describes the structure of an orotidine monophosphate decarboxylase and computational chemistry studies to understand its mechanism.
40. Zhang H, Huang K, Li Z, Banerjei L, Fisher KE, Grishin NV, Eisenstein E, Herzberg O: Crystal structure of YbaK protein from Haemophilus Influenzas (HI1434) at 1.8 A resolution: Functional implications. Proteins (2000) 40:86-97. This paper demonstrates how the authors determine the structure of a protein of unknown function from Haemophilus influenzas and assign a putative function to the protein from structural homology clues.
41. Cramer P, Bushnell DA, Fu J, Gnatt AL, Maier-Davis B, Thompson NE, Burgess RR, Edwards AM, David PR, Komberg RD: Architecture of RNA polymerase II and implications for the transcription mechanism. Science (2000) 288:640-649. While not pertaining directly to structural genomics, this paper illustrates the Herculean effort that must sometimes be deployed to determine a macromolecular structure.
42. Skolnick J, Fetrow JS, Kolinski A: Structural genomics and its importance for gene functional analysis. Nature Biotechnol (2000) 18:283-287 This very recent review outlines the possible future uses of structural genomics data, as well as current structural genomics resources. It also provides insight into how structural genomics can be used for functional analysis and molecular modeling.