Generating protein interaction maps from incomplete data: Application to fold assignment

Bioinformatics

Volumn 17, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2001, Pages

  Lappe, Michael ^a   Park, Jong ^a   Niggemann, Oliver ^b   Holm, Liisa ^a  

^a EUROPEAN BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADERBORN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FUNGAL PROTEIN; PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; METABOLISM; PROTEIN DATABASE; PROTEIN FOLDING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TWO HYBRID SYSTEM;

ALGORITHMS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DATABASES, PROTEIN; FUNGAL PROTEINS; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEINS; TWO-HYBRID SYSTEM TECHNIQUES;

EID: 0035232248     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 13674811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.suppl_1.S149     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Albert, R., H. Jeong, et al. (2000) Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406, 378-82.
2. Altschul, S. F., T. L. Madden, et al. (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSIBLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res., 25, 3389-402.
3. Eisenberg, D. M., E.M. Xenarios, I. Yeates,T.O. (2000) Protein Function in the Post-genomic era. Nature, 405, 823-826.
4. Enright, A. J., I. Iliopoulos, et al. (1999) Protein interaction maps for complete genomes based on gene fusion events Nature, 402, 86-90.
5. Goh, C. S., A. A. Bogan, et al. (2000) Co-evolution of proteins with their interaction partners. J. Mol. Biol., 299, 283-93.
6. Hadley, C. and D. T. Jones (1999) A systematic comparison of protein structure classifications: SCOP, CATH and FSSP. Structure Fold Des., 7, 1099-112.
7. Huynen, M., B. Snel, et al. (2000) Predicting protein function by genomic context: quantitative evaluation and qualitative inferences. Genome Res., 10, 1204-10.
8. Jeong, H., B. Tombor, et al. (2000) The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature, 407, 651-4.
9. Marcotte, E. M. (2000) Computational genetics: finding protein function by nonhomology methods. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 10, 359-65.
10. Mayer, M. L. and P. Hieter (2000) Protein networks-built by association. Nat. Biotechnol., 18, 1242-3.
11. Murzin, A. G., S. E. Brenner, et al. (1995) SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J. Mol.Biol, 247, 536-40.
12. Orengo, C. A., A. D. Michie, et al. (1997) CATH-a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure, 5, 1093-108.
13. Overbeek, R., N. Larsen, et al. (2000) WIT: integrated system for high-throughput genome sequence analysis and metabolic reconstruction. Nucleic Nucleic Acids Res., 28, 123-5.
14. Park, J., M. Lappe, et al. (2001) Mapping Protein Family Interactions: Intramolecular and Intermolecular Protein Family Interaction Repertoires in the PDB and Yeast. J. Mol. Biol., 307, 929-938.
15. Sander, C. and R. Schneider (1991) Database of homology-derived protein structures and the structural meaning of sequence alignment. Proteins, 9, 56-68.
16. Schwikowski, B., P. Uetz, et al. (2000) A network of protein-protein interactions in yeast. Nat. Biotechnol., 18, 1257-61.
17. Stein, B., Niggemann, O. (1999) On the nature of structure and its identification. 25th International Workshop on Graph Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, WG9, Springer Verlag.
18. Tatusov, R. L., E. V. Koonin, et al. (1997) A genomic perspective on protein families. Science, 278, 631-7.
19. Teichmann, S. A., C. Chothia, et al. (2000) Fast assignment of protein structures to sequences using the intermediate sequence library PDB-ISL. Bioinformatics, 16, 117-24.
20. Xenarios, I., E. Fernandez, et al. (2001) DIP: The Database of Interacting Proteins: 2001 update. Nucleic Acids Res., 29, 239-41.