Protein structure prediction in the postgenomic era

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 371-379

  Jones, David T ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE;

GENE FUNCTION; GENE SEQUENCE; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

EID: 0034126813     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-440X(00)00099-3     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Altschul S.F., Madden T.L., Schaffer A.A., Zhang J.H., Zhang Z., Miller W., Lipman D.J. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25:1997;3389-3402.
2. Eddy S.R. Hidden Markov models. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 6:1996;361-365.
3. Bork P., Koonin E.V. Predicting functions from protein sequences - where are the bottlenecks? Nat Genet. 18:1998;313-318.
4. Fischer D., Eisenberg D. Finding families for genomic ORFans. Bioinformatics. 15:1999;759-762. Sequence orphans (unique functionally uncharacterised sequences) represent the toughest challenges for theoretical approaches to genome analysis. It is not clear how quickly the number of sequence orphans in different genomes will decrease. The results in this paper suggest that we will be facing the problem of sequence orphans for a long time.
5. Kowalczuk M., Mackiewicz P., Gierlik A., Dudek M.R., Cebrat S. Total number of coding open reading frames in the yeast genome. Yeast. 15:1999;1031-1034.
6. Marcotte E.M., Pellegrini M., Thompson M.J., Yeates T.O., Eisenberg D. A combined algorithm for genome-wide prediction of protein function. Nature. 402:1999;83-86. This paper describes several methods for defining the function of a gene product by theoretical means and also for identifying possible protein-protein interactions in which the encoded proteins take part. Importantly, these methods do not rely upon knowing the function of a related gene.
7. ••], whereby the fused sequence is called a 'Rosetta sequence'.
8. Editorial: Money for structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol 1999, 6:707-708.
9. Shapiro L., Lima C.D. The Argonne Structural Genomics Workshop: Lamaze class for the birth of a new science. Structure. 6:1998;265-267.
10. Orengo C.A., Michie A.D., Jones S., Jones D.T., Swindells M.B., Thornton J.M. CATH - a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure. 5:1997;1093-1108.
11. Sussman J.L., Lin D.W., Jiang J.S., Manning N.O., Prilusky J., Ritter O., Abola E.E. Protein Data Bank (PDB): database of three-dimensional structural information of biological macromolecules. Acta Crystallogr D. 54:1998;1078-1084.
12. Thornton J.M., Orengo C.A., Todd A.E., Pearl F.M.G. Proteins folds, functions and evolution. J Mol Biol. 293:1999;333-342. This paper documents the distribution of enzyme functions (as described by enzyme classification [EC] numbers) in the CATH structure classification database.
13. Hegyi H., Gerstein M. The relationship between protein structure and function: a comprehensive survey with application to the yeast genome. J Mol Biol. 288:1999;147-164. A slightly different approach to the evaluation of the relationship between fold and function is described. In this case, the SWISS-PROT databank is used to extend the size of the dataset and the SCOP structure classification scheme is primarily used.
14. Martin A.C., Orengo C.A., Hutchinson E.G., Jones S., Karmirantzou M., Laskowski R.A., Mitchell J.B., Taroni C., Thornton J.M. Protein folds and functions. Structure. 6:1998;875-884.
15. Orengo C.A., Jones D.T., Thornton J.M. Protein superfamilies and domain superfolds. Nature. 372:1994;631-634.
16. Yang F., Gustafson K.R., Boyd M.R., Wlodawer A. Crystal structure of Escherichia coli HdeA. Nat Struct Biol. 5:1998;763-764.
17. Volz K. A test case for structure-based functional assignment: the 1.2 Å crystal structure of the yjgF gene product from Escherichia coli. Protein Sci. 8:1999;2428-2437.
18. Zarembinski T.I., Hung L.W., Mueller-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 of structural genomics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 95:1998;15 189-15 193.
19. Wallace A.C., Borkakoti N., Thornton J.M. TESS: a geometric hashing algorithm for deriving 3D coordinate templates for searching structural databases. Application to enzyme active sites. Protein Sci. 6:1997;2308-2323.
20. Russell R.B., Sasieni P.D., Sternberg M.J.E. Supersites within superfolds. Binding site similarity in the absence of homology. J Mol Biol. 282:1998;903-918.
21. Fetrow J.S., 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. 282:1998;703-711.
22. Fetrow J.S., Skolnick J. Method for prediction of protein function from sequence using the sequence-to-structure-to-function paradigm with application to glutaredoxins/thioredoxins and T-1 ribonucleases. J Mol Biol. 281:1998;949-968.
23. Overington J., Donnelly D., Johnson M.S., Sali A., Blundell T.L. Environment-specific amino-acid substitution tables - tertiary templates and prediction of protein folds. Protein Sci. 1:1992;216-226.
24. Bowie J.U., Lüthy R., Eisenberg D. A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science. 253:1991;164-170.
25. Ouzounis C., Sander C., Scharf M., Schneider R. Prediction of protein structure by evaluation of sequence-structure fitness. Aligning sequences to contact profiles derived from three-dimensional structures. J Mol Biol. 232:1993;805-825.
26. Jones D.T., Taylor W.R., Thornton J.M. A new approach to protein fold recognition. Nature. 258:1992;86-89.
27. Bryant S.H., Lawrence C.E. An empirical energy function for threading protein-sequence through the folding motif. Proteins. 16:1993;92-112.
28. Flöckner H., Braxenthaler M., Lackner P., Jaritz M., Ortner M., Sippl M.J. Progress in fold recognition. Proteins. 23:1995;376-386.
29. Fischer D., Eisenberg D. Assigning folds to the proteins encoded by the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 94:1997;11 929-11 934.
30. Grandori R. Systematic fold recognition analysis of the sequences encoded by the genome of Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Protein Eng. 11:1998;1129-1135.
31. Teichmann S.A., Park J., Chothia C. Structural assignments to the Mycoplasma genitalium proteins show extensive gene duplications and domain rearrangements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 95:1998;14 658-14 663.
32. Huynen M., Doerks T., Eisenhaber F., Orengo C., Sunyaev S., Yuan Y.P., Bork P. Homology-based fold predictions for Mycoplasma genitalium proteins. J Mol Biol. 280:1998;323-326.
33. Wolf Y.I., Brenner S.E., Bash P.A., Koonin E.V. Distribution of protein folds in the three superkingdoms of life. Genome Res. 9:1999;17-26.
34. Salamov A.A., Suwa M., Orengo C.A., Swindells M.B. Genome analysis:assigning protein coding regions to three-dimensional structures. Protein Sci. 8:1999;771-777.
35. Rychlewski L., Zhang B.H., Godzik A. Fold and function predictions for Mycoplasma genitalium proteins. Fold Des. 3:1998;229-238.
36. Rychlewski L., Zhang B.H., Godzik A. Functional insights from structural predictions: analysis of the Escherichia coli genome. Protein Sci. 8:1999;614-624.
37. Jones D.T. GenTHREADER: an efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. J Mol Biol. 287:1999;797-815. GenTHREADER represents a fold recognition method that combines features of sequence profile comparison and threading. In testing, it was able to assign folds to a greater fraction of the M. genitalium open reading frames at high confidence (1% false positive rate) than other fold assignment methods.
38. Moult J., Hubbard T., Fidelis K., Pedersen J.T. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP): round III. Proteins. S3:1999;2-6. This special issue of Proteins relating to the third CASP experiment is a 'must read' for anyone wishing to know what are the current abilities and limitations of modern protein structure prediction methods.
39. Sanchez R., Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling in genomics. J Comp Phys. 151:1999;388-401. This paper describes how comparative modelling techniques can be applied to large-scale genome analysis. In particular, the authors' method allows the quality of a model to be predicted.
40. Jones T.A., Kleywegt G.J. CASP3 comparative modeling evaluation. Proteins. S3:1999;30-46.
41. Bates P.A., Sternberg M.J.E. Model building by comparison at CASP3: using expert knowledge and computer automation. Proteins. S3:1999;47-54.
42. Dunbrack R.L. Comparative modeling of CASP3 targets using PSI-BLAST and SCWRL. Proteins. S3:1999;81-87.
43. Fischer D. Modeling three-dimensional protein structures for amino acid sequences of the CASP3 experiment using sequence-derived predictions. Proteins. S3:1999;61-65.
44. Murzin A.G., Bateman A. Distant homology recognition using structural classification of proteins. Proteins. S1:1997;105-112.
45. Fischer D., Barret C., Bryson K., Elofsson A., Godzik A., Jones D., Karplus K.J., Kelley L.A., MacCallum R.M., Pawowski K.et al. CAFASP-1: critical assessment of fully automated structure prediction methods. Proteins. S3:1999;209-217. Fully automatic prediction methods are essential if they are to be applied to genome analysis. This paper describes a 'pilot study' that explores how various Web-based prediction servers can be evaluated in a systematic way.
46. Jones D.T. Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. J Mol Biol. 292:1999;195-202. PSIPRED (URL: http://globin.bio.warwick.ac.uk/psipred ) is probably the most accurate secondary structure prediction method currently available. At CASP3, it was found to be the most accurate method.
47. Jones D.T. Successful ab initio prediction of the tertiary structure of NK-lysin using multiple sequences and recognized supersecondary structural motifs. Proteins. S1:1997;185-191.
48. Simons K.T., Bonneau R., Ruczinski I., Baker D. Ab initio protein structure prediction of CASP III targets using ROSETTA. Proteins. S3:1999;171-176.
49. Hubbard T.J.P. RMS/coverage graphs: a qualitative method for comparing three-dimensional protein structure predictions. Proteins. S3:1999;15-21.
50. Lee J., Liwo A., Ripoll D.R., Pillardy J., Scheraga H.A. Calculation of protein conformation by global optimization of a potential energy function. Proteins. S3:1999;204-208. This prediction of the HDEA structure (see text) was amongst the best of the CASP3 predictions. It was particularly notable because the method used was based on physical principles and was not a 'knowledge-based' approach. However, the result required hours of computation on a large supercomputer and other results obtained using this approach were not of comparable quality to this one.
51. Jones D.T. Progress in protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 7:1997;377-387.
52. Butler D. IBM promises scientists 500-fold leap in supercomputing power. Nature. 402:1999;705-706.
53. Teichmann S.A., Chothia C., Gerstein M. Advances in structural genomics. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 9:1999;390-399. This review includes a very informative comparison of genomic fold recognition studies.
54. Brenner S.E., Barken D., Levitt M. The PRESAGE database for structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 27:1999;251-253.
55. Kraulis P.J. MOLSCRIPT: a program to produce both detailed and schematic plots of protein structures. J App Crystallogr. 24:1991;946-950.