A tour of structural genomics

Nature Reviews Genetics

Volumn 2, Issue 10, 2001, Pages 801-809

  Brenner, Steven E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMAL; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; BIOLOGY; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FORECASTING; GENETICS; GENOMICS; HUMAN; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; LABORATORY; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR GENETICS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PILOT STUDY; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN DATABASE; PROTEIN TERTIARY STRUCTURE; REVIEW; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMALS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, X-RAY; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DATABASES, PROTEIN; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FORECASTING; GENOMICS; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MODELS, STRUCTURAL; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE, BIOMOLECULAR; PILOT PROJECTS; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY, AMINO ACID; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 0035487690     PISSN: 14710056     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/35093574     Document Type: Review

References (125)

1. Lander, E. S. et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 660-921 (2001).
2. Venter, J. C. et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science 291, 1304-1351 (2001).
3. Devos, D. & Valencia, A. Practical units of function prediction. Proteins 41, 98-107 (2000).
4. Todd, A. E., Orengo, C. A. & Thornton, J. M. Evolution of function in protein superfamilies, from a structural perspective. J. Mol. Biol. 307, 1113-1143 (2001).
5. Brenner, S. E. Errors in genome annotation. Trends Genet. 15, 132-133 (1999).
6. Ashbumer, M. et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nature Genet. 25, 25-29 (2000).
7. Perutz, M. F. et al. Structure of hæmoglobin. A three-dimensional Fourier synthesis at 5.5 Å resolution, obtained by X-ray analysis. Nature 185, 416-422 (1960).
8. Kendrew, J. C. & Watson, H. C. Comparison between amino-acid sequences of sperm whale myoglobin and of human haemoglobin. Nature 190, 670 (1961).
9. Flaherty, K. M., McKay, D. B., Kabsch, W. & Holmes, K. C. Similarity of the three-dimensional structures of actin and the ATPase fragment of a 70-kDa heat shock cognate protein. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 88, 5041-5045 (1991).
10. Aravind, L., Leipe, D. D. & Koonin, E. V. Toprim - a conserved catalytic domain in type IA and II topoisomerases, DnaG-type primases, OLD family nucleases and RecR proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 4205-4213 (1998).
11. Berger, J. M., Fass, D., Wang, J. C. & Harrison, S. C. Structural similarities between topoisomerases that cleave one or both DNA strands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 7876-7881 (1998).
12. Brenner, S. E. Chothia, C. & Hubbard, T. J. P. Assessing sequence comparison methods with reliable structurally identified distant evolutionary relationships. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 6073-6078 (1998).
13. Bjorkman, P. J. et al. Structure of the human class I histocompatibility antigen, HLA-A2. Nature 329, 506-512 (1987).
14. Wilson, I. A. & Garcia, K. C. T-cell receptor structure and TCR complexes. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 7, 839-848 (1997).
15. Blundell, T. L. & Mizuguchi, K. Structural genomes: an overview. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 73, 289-295 (2000).
16. Burley, S. K. et al. Structural genomes: beyond the human genome project. Nature Genet. 23, 151-157 (1999).
17. Domingues, F. S., Koppensteiner, W. A. & Sippl, M. J. The role of protein structure in genomics. FEBS Lett. 476, 98-102 (2000).
18. Gaasterland, T. Structural genomics: bioinformatics in the drivers seat. Nature Biotechnol. 16, 625-627 (1998).
19. Kim, S. H. Shining a light on structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 5, 643-645 (1998).
20. Mittl, P. R. & Grutter, M. G. Structural genomics: opportunities and challenges. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5, 402-408 (2001).
21. Montelione, G. T. & Anderson, S. Structural genomics: keystone for a Human Proteome Project. Nature Struct. Biol. 6, 11-12 (1999).
22. Sali, A. 100,000 protein structures for the biologist. Nature Struct. Biol. 5, 1029-1032 (1998).
23. Shapiro, L. & Lima, C. D. The Argonne Structural Genomics Workshop: Lamaze class for the birth of a new science. Structure 6, 265-267 (1998).
24. Smith, T. A new era. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 927 (2000). The introduction to a supplement to Nature Structural Biology devoted to structural genomics, which contains 20 articles that address different aspects of the field.
25. Teichmann, S. A., Chothia, C. & Gerstein, M. Advances in structural genomics. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 9, 390-399 (1999).
26. Teichmann, S. A., Murzin, A. G. & Chothia, C. Determination of protein function, evolution and interactions by structural genomics. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 11, 354-363 (2001). This review includes an analysis of 32 structural genomics proteins and presents lessons learned in each case.
27. Doudna, J. A. Structural genomics of RNA. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 954-956 (2000).
28. Edwards, A. M. et al. Protein production: feeding the crystallographers and NMR spectroscopists. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 970-972 (2000).
29. Waldo, G. S., Standish, B. M., Berendzen, J. & Terwilliger, T. C. Rapid protein-folding assay using green fluorescent protein. Nature Biotechnol. 17, 691-695 (1999).
30. Yokoyama, S. et al. Structural genomics projects in Japan. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 73, 363-376 (2000).
31. Christendat, D. et al. Structural proteomics of an archaeon. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 903-909 (2000). Describes the determination of ten protein structures from M. thermoautotrophicum, using the principle of finding proteins that are most amenable to structural characterization.
32. Montelione, G. T., Zheng, D., Huang, Y. J., Gunsalus, K. C. & Szyperski, T. Protein NMR spectroscopy in structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 982-985 (2000).
33. Terwilliger, T. C. Structural genomics in North America. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 935-939 (2000).
34. Abola, E., Kuhn, P., Earnest, T. & Stevens, R. C. Automation of X-ray crystallography. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 973-977 (2000).
35. Bertone, P. et al. SPINE: an integrated tracking database and data mining approach for identifying feasible targets in high-throughput structural proteomics. Nucleic Acids Res 29, 2884-2898 (2001).
36. Hendrickson, W. A. Synchrotron crystallography. Trends Biochem. Sci. 25, 637-643 (2000).
37. Wider, G. & Wuthrich, K. NMR spectroscopy of large molecules and multimolecular assemblies in solution. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 9, 594-601 (1999).
38. Prestegard, J. H., Valafar, H., Glushka, J. & Tian, F. Nuclear magnetic resonance in the era of structural genomics. Biochemistry 40, 8677-6685 (2001).
39. Yokoyama, S. et al. Structural genomics projects in Japan. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 943-945 (2000).
40. Adams, P. D. & Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W. Recent developments in software for the automation of crystallographic macromolecular structure determination. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 10, 564-568 (2000).
41. Lamzin, V. S. & Perrakis, A. Current state of automated crystallographic data analysis. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 978-981 (2000).
42. Helgstrand, M., Kraulis, P., Allard, P. & Hard, T. Ansig for Windows: an interactive computer program for semiautomatic assignment of protein NMR spectra. J. Biomol. NMR 18, 329-336 (2000).
43. Zimmerman, D. E. et al. Automated analysis of protein NMR assignments using methods from artificial intelligence. J. Mol. Biol. 269, 592-610 (1997).
44. Bairoch, A. & Apweiler, R. The SWISS-PROT protein sequence database and its supplement TrEMBL in 2000. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 45-48 (2000).
45. Norvell, J. C. & Machalek, A. Z. Structural genomics programs at the US National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 931 (2000).
46. Vitkup, D., Melamud, E., Moult, J. & Sander, C. Completeness in structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 8, 559-566 (2001). This paper predicts the number of structure determinations necessary to provide three-dimensional models of all (or most) families of proteins.
47. Bateman, A. et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 263-266 (2000).
48. Kim, K. K., Hung, L. W. Yokota, H., Kim, R. & Kim, S. H. Crystal structures of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 5A from Methanococcus jannaschiii at 1.8 Å resolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 10419-10424 (1998). A report of one of the first structural genomics proteins solved; it represented inadvertent duplication of effort, as the same structure was independently solved in the next reference.
49. Peat, T. S., Newman, J., Waldo, G. S., Berendzen, J. & Terwilliger, T. C. Structure of translation initiation factor 5A from Pyrobaculum aerophium at 1.75 Å resolution. Structure 6, 1207-1214 (1998).
50. Sinha, S. et al. Crystal structure of Bacillus subtilis YabJ, a purine regulatory protein and member of the highly conserved YjgF family. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 13074-13079 (1999).
51. 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, 2428-2437 (1999).
52. Smaglik, P. Protein structure groups seek to draft common ground rules. Nature 403, 691 (2000).
53. Brenner, S. E. Target selection for structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 967-969 (2000).
54. Kuroda, Y., Tani, K., Matsuo, Y. & Yokoyama, S. Automated search of natively folded protein fragments for high-throughput structure determination in structural genomics. Protein Sci. 9, 2313-2321 (2000).
55. Dietmam, S. et al. A fully automatic evolutionary classification of protein folds: Dali Domain Dictionary version 3. Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 55-57 (2001). An introduction to one of the most popular systems for automatically comparing proteins of known structure.
56. Murzin, A. G., Brenner, S. E. Hubbard, T. & Chothia, C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J. Mol. Biol. 247, 536-540 (1995). The SCOP database is a comprehensive expert-curated hierarchical evolutionary classification of protein domains using structural information.
57. Pearl, F. M. et al. A rapid classification protocol for the CATH Domain Database to support structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 223-227 (2001). An introduction to CATH, a largely automated hierarchical classification of protein domain structures.
58. Siddiqui, A. S., Dengler, U. & Barton, G. J. 3Dee: a database of protein structural domains. Bioinformatics 17, 200-201 (2001).
59. Apic, G., Gough, J. & Teichmann, S. A. Domain combinations in archaeal, eubacterial and eukaryotic proteomes. J. Mol. Biol. 310, 311-325 (2001).
60. Apic, G., Gough, J. & Teichmam, S. A. An insight into domain combinations. Bioinformatics 17 (Suppl. 1), S83-S89 (2001).
61. Saha, S. et al. Solution structure of the LDL receptor EGF-AB pair. A paradigm for the assembly of tandem calcium binding EGF domains. Structure 9, 451-456 (2001).
62. Gerstein, M. Integrate database analysis in structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 960-963 (2000).
63. Fischer, D. Rational structural genomics: affirmative action for ORFans and the growth in our structural knowledge. Protein Eng. 12, 1029-1030 (1999). This paper describes interesting features of genes without homologues and the ability of structural genomics to elucidate their provenance.
64. Galperin, M. Y. Conserved 'hypothetical' proteins: new hints and new puzzles. Comp. Funct. Genomics 2, 14-18 (2001).
65. Linial, M. & Yona, G. Methodologies for target selection in structural genomics. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 73, 297-320 (2000).
66. Mallick, P., Goodwill, K. E., Fitz-Gibbon, S., Miller, J. H. & 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 97, 2450-2455 (2000).
67. Erlandsen, H., Abola, E. E. & Stevens, R. C. Combining structural genomics and enzymology: completing the picture in metabolic pathways and enzyme active sites. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 10, 719-730 (2000).
68. Lewis, H. A. et al. A structural genomics approach to the study of quorum sensing. Crystal structures of three LuxS orthologs. Structure 9, 527-537 (2001).
69. Terwilliger, T. C. et al. Class-directed structure determination: foundation for a protein structure initiative. Protein Sci. 7, 1851-1856 (1998).
70. Shapiro, L. & Harris, T. Finding function through structural genomics. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 11, 31-35 (2000).
71. Skolnick, J., Fetrow, J. S. & Kolinski, A. Structural genomics and its importance for gene function analysis. Nature Biotechnol. 18, 283-287 (2000).
72. Thornton, J. M. From genome to function. Science 292, 2095-2097 (2001).
73. Thornton, J. M., Todd, A. E., Milbourn, D., Borkakoti, N. & Orengo, C. A. From structure to function: approaches and limitations. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 991-994 (2000).
74. Berman, H. M. et al. The Protein Data Bank and the challenge of structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 957-959 (2000).
75. Gibrat, J. F., Madej, T. & Bryant, S. H. Surprising similarities in structure comparison. Cure Opin. Struct. Biol. 6, 377-385 (1996).
76. Orengo, C. A. & Taylor, W. R. SSAP: sequential structure alignment program for protein structure comparison. Methods Enzymol. 266, 617-635 (1996).
77. Shindyalov, I. N. & Bourne, P. E. Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. Protein Eng. 11, 739-747 (1998).
78. Subbiah, S., Laurents, D. V. & Levitt, M. Structural similarity of DNA-binding domains of bacteriophage repressors and the globin core. Curr. Biol. 3, 141-149 (1993).
79. Brenner, S. E. & Levitt, M. Expectations from structural genomics. Protein Sci. 9, 197-200 (2000). Uses historical data to predict the fraction of new folds and new superfamilies to be discovered by structural genomics.
80. Koppensteiner, W. A., Lackner, P., Wiederstein, M. & Sippl, M. J. Characterization of novel proteins based on known protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 296, 1139-1152 (2000).
81. Cort, J. R., Yee, A., Edwards, A. M., Arrowsmith, C. H. & Kennedy, M. A. Structure-based functional classification of hypothetical protein MTH538 from Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum. J. Mol. Biol. 302, 189-203 (2000).
82. Cort, J. R., Yee, A., Edwards, A. M., Arrowsmith, C. H. & Kennedy, M. A. NMR structure determination and structure-based functional characterization of conserved hypothetical protein MTH1175 from Methane-bacterium thermoautotrophicum. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics 1, 15-25 (2001).
83. 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, 703-711 (1998).
84. 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, 2308-2323 (1997).
85. Wei, L. & Altman, R. B. Recognizing protein binding sites using statistical descriptions of their 3D environments. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 4, 497-508 (1998).
86. Lichtarge, O., Bourne, H. R. & Cohen, F. E. An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. J. Mol. Biol. 257, 342-358 (1996).
87. Sowa, M. E. et al. Prediction and confirmation of a site critical for effector regulation of RGS domain activity. Nature Struct. Biol. 8, 234-237 (2001).
88. Boggon, T. J., Shan, W. S., Santagata, S., Myers, S. C. & Shapiro, L. Implication of tubby proteins as transcription factors by structure-based functional analysis. Science 286, 2119-2125 (1999). This paper predicts the DNA-binding function of tubby proteins on the basis of examination of the surface electrostatics of the structure.
89. Teplova, M. et al. The structure of the YrdC gene product from Escherichia coli reveals a new fold and suggests a role in RNA binding. Protein Sci. 9, 2557-2566 (2000).
90. Hwang, K. Y., Chung, J. H., Kim, S. H., Han, Y. S. & Cho, Y. Structure-based identification of a novel NTPase from Methanococcus jannaschii. Nature Struct. Biol. 6, 691-696 (1999).
91. Minasov, G. et al. Functional implications from crystal structures of the conserved Bacillus subtilis protein Maf with and without dUTP. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 6328-6333 (2000).
92. Lim, K. et al. Crystal structure of YecO from Haemophilus influenzae (H10319) reveals a methyltransferase fold and a bound S-adenosylhomocysteine. Proteins (in the press).
93. Zarembinski, T. I. et al. Structure-based assignment of the biochemical function of a hypothetical protein: a test case of structural genomics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 15189-15193 (1998). This paper reports that a bound ATP that was found in the solved structure indicated that this hypothetical protein is a molecular switch.
94. Sanchez, R. et al. Protein structure modeling for structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 986-990 (2000).
95. Friedberg, I., Kaplan, T. & Margalit, H. Evaluation of PSIBLAST alignment accuracy in comparison to structural alignments. Protein Sci. 9, 2278-2284 (2000).
96. Sauder, J. M., Arthur, J. W. & Dunbrack, R. L. Jr Large-scale comparison of protein sequence alignment algorithms with structure alignments. Proteins 40, 6-22 (2000).
97. Dunker, A. K. et al. Protein disorder and the evolution of molecular recognition: theory, predictions and observations. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. [AU: Vol?], 473-484 (1998).
98. Wootton, J. C. & Federhen, S. Analysis of compositionally biased regions in sequence databases. Methods Enzymol. 266, 554-571 (1996).
99. Wright, P. E. & Dyson, H. J. Intrinsically unstructured proteins: re-assessing the protein structure-function paradigm. J. Mol. Biol. 293, 321-331 (1999).
100. Schaffer, A. A. et al. Improving the accuracy of PSI-BLAST protein database searches with composition-based statistics and other refinements. Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 2994-3005 (2001).
101. Fowler, C. A., Tian, F., Al-Hashimi, H. M. & Prestegard, J. H. Rapid determination of protein folds using residual dipolar couplings. J. Mol. Biol. 304, 447-460 (2000).
102. Potts, B. C. & Chazin, W. J. Chemical shift homology in proteins. J. Biomol. NMR 11, 45-57 (1998).
103. Young, M. M. et al. High throughput protein fold identification by using experimental constraints derived from intramolecular cross-links and mass spectrometry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 5802-5806 (2000). In this work, cross-linking and mass spectrometry were used to glean limited structural information, sufficient to predict a protein fold.
104. Simons, K. T., Strauss, C. & Baker, D. Prospects for ab initio protein structural genomics. J. Mol. Biol. 306, 1191-1199 (2001).
105. Wuthrich, K. Protein recognition by NMR. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 188-189 (2000).
106. Baumeister, W. & Steven, A. C. Macromolecular electron microscopy in the era of structural genomics. Trends Biochem. Sci. 25, 624-631 (2000).
107. Heinemann, U. Structural genomics in Europe: slow start, strong finish? Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 940-942 (2000).
108. Butler, D. Wellcome discusses structural genomics effort with industry. . . but data release remains an open question. Nature 406, 923-924 (2000).
109. Williamson, A. R. Creating a structural genomics consortium. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 953 (2000).
110. Berman, H. M. et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 235-242 (2000).
111. Orengo, C. A. et al. The CATH database provides insights into protein structure/function relationships. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 275-279 (1999).
112. Brenner, S. E., Barken, D. & Levitt, M. The PRESAGE database for structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 251-253 (1999).
113. Sanchez, R. & Sali, A. ModBase: a database of comparative protein structure models. Bioinformatics 15, 1060-1061 (1999).
114. Huynen, M. et al. Homology-based fold predictions for Mycoplasma genitalium proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 280, 323-326 (1998).
115. Rychlewski, L., Zhang, B. & Godzik, A. Functional insights from structural predictions: analysis of the Escherichia coli genome. Protein Sci. 8, 614-624 (1999).
116. 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, 14658-14663 (1998).
117. Phillips, S. E. & Schoenbom, B. P. Neutron diffraction reveals oxygen-histidine hydrogen bond in oxymyoglobin. Nature 292, 81-82 (1981).
118. Fermi, G., Perutz, M. F., Shaanan, B. & Fourme, R. The crystal structure of human deoxyhaemoglobin at 1.74 Å resolution. J. Mol. Biol. 175, 159-174 (1984).
119. Bashford, D., Chothia, C. & Lesk, A. M. Determinants of a protein fold. Unique features of the globin amino acid sequences. J. Mol. Biol. 196, 199-216 (1987).
120. Sayle, R. A. & Milner-White, E. J. RASMOL: biomolecular graphics for all. Trends Biochem. Sci. 20, 374 (1995).
121. Kraulis, P. J. Molscript: a program to produce both detailed and schematic plots of protein structure. J. Appl. Crystallography 24, 946-950 (1991).
122. Merritt, E. A. & Bacon, D. J. Raster3d: photorealistic molecular graphics. Methods Enzymol. 277, 505-524 (1997).
123. Eisenstein, E. et al. Biological function made crystal clear - annotation of hypothetical proteins via structural genomics. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 11, 25-30 (2000).
124. Heinemann, U. et al. An integrated approach to structural genomics. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 73, 347-362 (2000).
125. Dry, S., McCarthy, S. & Harris, T. Structural genomics in the biotechnology sector. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 946-949 (2000).