Proteomic informatics: In silico methods lead to data management challenges

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 322-332

  Haley Vicente, Dana ^a   Edwards, David J ^a  

^a ACCELRYS INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Functional annotation; Homology modeling; Knowledge management; Protein structure; Structural proteomics

Indexed keywords

DNA; GENE PRODUCT;

BIOMEDICINE; CELL FUNCTION; COMPUTER MODEL; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DNA DETERMINATION; DNA SEQUENCE; ENZYME ANALYSIS; FACTUAL DATABASE; GENE IDENTIFICATION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INTERNET; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; STORAGE; TECHNOLOGY;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMALS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; HUMANS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PROTEOMICS;

EID: 0038458873     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (111)

1. Helfrich JP: Raw data to knowledge warehouse in proteomic-based drug discovery: A scientific data management issue. Biotechniques (2002) (Suppl):48-50, 52-53.
2. Chambers G, Lawrie L, Cash P, Murray GI: Proteomics: A new approach to the study of disease. J Pathol (2000) 192:280-288.
3. Chakravarti DN, Chakravarti B, Moutsatsos I: Informatic tools for proteome profiling. Biotechniques (2002) (Suppl):4-10, 12-15.
4. Mylvaganam SE, Prabhakaran M, Tudor SS, Moezzi S, Ramnarayan K: Structural proteomics: Methods in deriving protein structural Information and issues in data management. Biotechniques (2002) (Suppl):42-46. This outstanding technology report reviews the current status of protein structure determination methods, statistically compares the models to experimentally derived structures and presents the issues related to storage, retrieving and manipulation of the data in a relational format.
5. Protein Data Bank: Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics, USA. http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/
6. Submit to GenBank: National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD, USA. http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/Genbank/
7. Russell RB, Eggleston DS: New roles for structure in biology and drug discovery. Nat Struct Biol (2000) 7(Suppl)928-930.
8. Pearson WR: Empirical statistical estimates for sequence similarity searches. J Mol Biol (1998) 276:71-84.
9. Pearson WR, Lipman DJ: Improved tools for biological sequence comparison. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1988) 85:2444-2448.
10. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ: Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol(1990) 215:403-410.
11. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, 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.
12. Orengo CA, Todd AE, Thornton JM: From protein structure to function. Curr Opin Struct Biol (1999) 9:374-382. The authors give answers to some basic but important questions in structural proteomics, such as "Do certain classes of protein structure favor particular functions?"; "What functional information can be inferred from fold similarity?; and 'To what extent can function be inherited from homologous structures?"
13. Park J, Karplus K, Barrett C, Hughey R, Haussler D, Hubbard T, Chothia C: Sequence comparisons using multiple sequences detect three times as many remote homologues as pairwise methods. J Mol Biol (1998) 284:1201-1210.
14. National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD, USA. http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/
15. ExPASy Molecular Biology Server: Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Switzerland. http://us.expasy.org/
16. European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, UK. http:/www.ebi.ac.uk/Informat/bn/index.html
17. Sequence Database Group: European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, UK. http:/www.ebi.ac.uk/seqdb/index.html
18. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ: CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res (1994) 22:4673-4680.
19. Lee C, Grasso C, Sharlow MF: Multiple sequence alignment using partial order graphs. Bioinformatics (2002) 18:452-464.
20. Partial Order Alignment: University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. http:/www.bioinformatics.ucla.edu/poa/
21. PSORT: Prediction of Protein Sorting Signals and Localization Site in Amino Acid Sequences. Tokyo University, Tokyo, Japan. http://psort.nibb.ac.jp/
22. TargetP Server v1.01: Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, Lyngby, Denmark. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/serv/ces/TargetP/
23. PhosphoBase v2.0: Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, Lyngby, Denmark. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/databases/PhosphoBase/
24. SignalP v1.1: Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, Lyngby, Denmark. http:/www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/SignalP/
25. The MEME/MAST System: University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. http://meme.sdsc.edu/meme/website/intro.html
26. ProtoMap: Cornell University, Ithaca, NJ, USA. http://protomap.comell.edu/intro.html
27. ProDom: INRA, Toulouse, France. http://protein.toulouse.inra.fr/prodom/2002.1/html/home.php
28. PRINTS: Protein Fingerprint Database: University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/dbbrowser/PRINTS/
29. PROSITE: Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Geneva, Switzerland. http://us.expasy.org/prosite/
30. ProClass Database: Protein Information Resource, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA. http://pir.georgetown.edu/gfserver/proclass.html
31. Blocks WWW Server: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. http://www.blocks.fhcrc.org/
32. SMART: European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany. http://smart.embl-he/delberg.de/
33. Pfam: Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK. http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Software/Pfam/index.shtml
34. DS SeqStore. Edition 3.1: Accslrys Inc, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.accelrys.com/dstudio/ds_seqstore/
35. GCG Wisconsin Package. Edition 10.3: Accslrys Inc, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.accelrys.com/products/gcg_wisconsin_package/
36. Fischer D, Eisenberg D: Protein fold recognition using sequence-derived predictions. Protein Sci(1996) 5:947-955.
37. 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.
38. Jones DT: GenTHREADER: An efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. J Mol Biol (1999) 287:797-815.
39. Pawlowski K, Zhang B, Rychlewski L, Godzik A: The Helicobacter pylori genome: From sequence analysis to structural and functional predictions. Proteins (1999) 36: 20-30.
40. Fetrow JS, Godzik A, Skolnick J: Functional analysis of the Escherichia coil genome using the sequence-to-structure-to-function paradigm: Identification of proteins exhibiting the glutaredoxin/thiotedoxin disulfide oxidoreductase activity. J Mol Biol (1998) 282:703-711.
41. Teichmann SA, Park J, Chothia C: Structural assignments to the Mycoplasma genitallum proteins show extensive gene duplications and domain rearrangements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1998) 95:14658-14663.
42. Abola E, Kuhn P, Earnest T, Stevens RC: Automation of X-ray crystallography. Nat Struct Biol (2000) 7(Suppl):973-977.
43. Montelione GT, Zheng D, Huang YJ, Gunselus KC, Szyperski T: Protein NMR spectroscopy in structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol (2000) 7(Suppl):982-985.
44. Buchanan SG: Structural genomics: Bridging functional genomics and structure-based drug design. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2002) 5:367-381. This outstanding review highlights the advances in structural genomics, with emphasis on structure-based drug design methods. Special topics discussed in this paper include absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination (ADME) prediction and structural pharmacogenomics.
45. Brenner SE: Target selection for structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol (2000) 7(Suppl):967-969.
46. Liu J, Rost B: Target space for structural genomics revisited. Bioinformatics (2002) 18:922-933.
47. Chance MR, Bresnick AR, Burley SK, Jiang JS, Lima CD, Sali A, Almo SC, Bonanno JB, Buglino JA, Boulton S, Chen H et al: Structural genomics: A pipeline for providing structures for the biologist. Protein Sci (2002) 11:723-738. A good update and some interesting examples in the field of structural genomics, including topics such as target selection, production and testing of clones, as well as a detailed structural analysis of an Escherichia coli Gab protein structure.
48. Protein Structure Prediction Center: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA. http://PredictionCenter.llnl.gov/
49. Buchanan SG, Sauder JM, Harris T: The promise of structural genomics In the discovery of new antimicrobial agents. Curr Pharm Design (2002) 8:1173-1188.
50. Orengo CA, Michie AD, Jones S, Jones DT, Swindells MB, Thornton JM: CATH - A hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure (1997) 5:1093-1108.
51. Pearl FM, Lee D, Bray JE, Sillitoe I, Todd AE, Harrison AP, Thornton JM, Orengo CA: Assigning genomic sequences to CATH. Nucleic Acids Res (2000) 28:277-282.
52. CATH - Protein Structure Classification: University College London, London, UK. http:/www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/cath_new/index.html
53. Holm L, Sander C: Mapping the protein universe. Science (1996) 273:595-603.
54. FSSP: Fold classification based on Structure-Structure alignment of Proteins: European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, UK. http://www2.embl-ebi.ac.uk/dalli/fssp/fssp.html
55. The Dall server: European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, UK. http:/www2.embl-ebi.ac.uk/dali/
56. VAST Search: National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Structure/VASTA/vastsearch.html
57. HOMSTRAD: Homologous Structure Alignment Database: University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. http://www-cryst.bioc.cam.ac.uk/~homstrad/
58. Prediction of Coiled Coils from Protein Sequences: University of York, York, UK. http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/biol/units/coils/coilcoil.html
59. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM: A model recognition approach to the prediction of all-helical membrane protein structure and topology. Biochemistry (1994) 33:3038-3049.
60. Jones DT: Do transmembrane protein superfolds exist? FEBS Lett (1998) 423:281-285.
61. TMpred - Prediction of Transmembrane Regions and Orientation: EMBnet, Switzerland. http:/www.ch.embnet.org/software/TMPRED_form.html
62. Hofmann K, Stoffel W: TMbase - A database of membrane spanning proteins segments. Biol Chem Hoppe Seyler(1993) 374:166.
63. Aloy P, Cedano J, Oliva B, Aviles FX, Querol E: 'rransMem': A neural network Implemented in Excel spreadsheets for predicting transmembrane domains of proteins. Comput Appl Biosci (1997) 13:231-234.
64. HMMTOP: Hungarian Academy of Science, Budapest, Hungary. http://www.enzim.hu/hmmtop/
65. SOSUI: Classification and Secondary Structure Prediction of Membrane Proteins: Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo, Japan. http:/sosui.proteome.bio.tuat.ac.jp/sosuiframeO.html
66. TopPred: Topology prediction of membrane proteins: Institut Pasteur, Paris, France. http:/bioweb.pasteur.fr/seqanal/interfaces/toppred.html
67. yon Heijne G: Membrane protein structure prediction. Hydrophobicity analysis and the positive-inside rule. J Mol Biol (1992) 225:487-494.
68. King RD, Stemberg MJ: Identification and application of the concepts Important for accurate and reliable protein secondary structure prediction. Protein Sci (1996) 5:2298-2310.
69. Gamier J, Deleage G: GOR method for predicting protein secondary structure from amino acid sequence. Methods Enzymol (1996) 266:540-553.
70. Geourjon C, Deleage G: SOPM: A self-optimized method for protein secondary structure prediction. Protein Eng (1994) 7:157-164.
71. Geourjon C, Deleage G: SOPMA: Significant Improvements in protein secondary structure prediction by consensus prediction from multiple alignments. Comput Appl Biosci (1995) 11:681-684.
72. Guermeur Y, Geourjon C, Gallimari P, Deleage G: Improved performance In protein secondary structure prediction by inhomogeneous score combination. Bioinformatics (1999) 15:413-421.
73. Deleage G, Roux B: An algorithm from protein secondary structure prediction based on class prediction. Protein Eng (1987) 1:289-294.
74. Deleage G, Tinland B, Roux B: A computerized version of the Chou and Fasman method for predicting the secondary structure of proteins. Anal Biochem (1987) 163:292-297.
75. Rost B, Sander C, Schneider R: PHD - An automated mail server for protein secondary structure prediction. Comput Appl Biosci (1994) 10:53-60.
76. Rost B, Sander C: Prediction of protein secondary structure at better than 70% accuracy. J Mol Biol (1993) 232:584-599.
77. Levin JM: Exploring the limits of nearest neighbout secondary structure prediction. Protein Eng (1997) 10:771-776.
78. Chou PY, Fasman GD: Prediction of protein conformation. Biochemistry (1974) 13:222-245.
79. Threading a sequence through a set of structures: National Cancer Institute Frederick, Bethesda, MD, USA. http://123d.ncifcrf.gov/123D+.html
80. Jones DT: Protein secondary structure prediction based on positionspecific scoring matrices. J Mol Biol (1999) 292:195-202.
81. McGuffin LJ, Bryson K, Jones DT: The PSIPRED protein structure prediction server. Bioinformatics (2000) 16:404-405.
82. UCLA/DOE Fold Server: University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. http://fold.doe-mbi.ucla.edu/
83. SeqFold: Accelrys Inc, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.accelrys.com/insight/seqfold.html
84. PROSPECT: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA. http://compbio.oml.gov/structure/prospect/
85. Skolnick J, Kihara D: Defrosting the frozen approximation: PROSPECTOR - A new approach to threading. Proteins (2001) 42:319-331.
86. Zhang B, Rychlewski L, Pawlowski K, Fetrow JS, Skolnick J, Godzik A: From fold predictions to function predictions: Automation of functional site conservation analysis for functional genome predictions. Protein Sci (1999) 8:1104-1115.
87. GeneFold: Tripos Inc, St Louis, MO, USA. http://www.tripos.com/sciTech/inSilicoDisc/bioInformatics/genefoldhtml
88. Marti-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A: Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct (2000) 29:291-325. An outstanding annual review of comparative modeling that takes the reader through the detailed steps of the method, from fold assignment to model buildng and refinement. The authors also discuss errors in comparative modeling and evaluation of the models, which are of great importance in the method and refinement of protein models.
89. Fiser A, Feig M, Brooks CL 3rd, Sali A: Evolution and physics in comparative protein structure modeling. Acc Chem Res (2002) 35:413-421.
90. Sali A, Overington JP: Derivation of rules for comparative protein modeling from a database of protein structure alignments. Protein Sci (1994) 3:1582-1596.
91. WHAT IF: Center for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, Nijmegen, the Natherlands. http://www.cmbi.kun.nl/gv/whatif/
92. Homology: Accelrys Inc, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.accelrys.com/insight/homology.html
93. Kelly K: MOE homology modeling results. (1997) http://www.chemcomp.com/article/homology.htm
94. The Baker Laboratory: University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. http://depts.washington.edu/bakerpg/
95. Reddy BV, Li WW, Shindyalov IN, Boume PE: Conserved key amino acid positions (CKAAPs) derived from the analysis of common substructures in proteins. Proteins (2001) 42:148-163.
96. Oidfield TJ: Creating structure features by data mining the PDB to use as molecular-replacement models. Acta Crystallogr Sect D: Biol Crystallogr (2001) 57:1421-1427.
97. Wallace AC, Borkakoti N, Thornton JM: TESS: A geometric hashing algorithm for deriving 3D coordinate templates for searching structural databases. Application to enzyme active sites. Protein Sci (1997) 6:2308-2323.
98. Fischer D, Wolfson H, Lin SL, Nussinov R: Three-dimensional, sequence order-independent structural comparison of a serine protease against the crystallographic database reveals active site similarities. Potential implications to evolution and to protein folding. Protein Sci (1994) 3:769-778.
99. Fetrow JS, Skolnick J: Method for prediction of protein function from sequence using the sequence-to-structure-to-function paradigm with application to glutaredoxins/thioredoxins and T1 ribonucleases. J Mol Biol (1998) 281:949-968.
100. Laskowski RA, Luscombe NM, Swindells MB, Thornton JM: Protein clefts In molecular recognition and function. Protein Sci (1996) 5:2438-2452.
101. CAFASP3 Registered Servers: Ben Gurion University, Be'er Sheva, Israel. http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~dfischer/CAFASP3/servers.html
102. Structure Prediction Meta Server: Bioinfo.PL, Poznan, Poland, http:/bioinfo.pl/Meta/help.html
103. DS GeneAtlas: Accelrys Inc, San Diego, CA, USA (2003). http://www.accelrys.com/products/geneatlas/
104. DS AtlasStore: Accelrys Inc, San Diego, CA, USA, http://www.accelrys.com/dstudio/ds_atlasstore/
105. ModBase: University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. http://alto.rockefeller.edu/modbase-cgi/index.cgi
106. Biopendium: Inpharmatica Ltd, London, UK. http://www.inpharmatica.co.uk/biopendium.htm
107. Ashbumer M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA et al: Gene Ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet (2000) 25:25-29.
108. Kitson DH, Badretdinov A, Zhu ZY, Velikanov M, Edwards DJ, Olszewski K, Szalma S, Yan L: Functional annotation of proteomic sequences based on consensus of sequence and structural analysis. Brief Bioinform (2002) 3:32-44.
109. Dweck R: Knowledge management: Is the hype justified? BIO-IT World (2003) (January):28.
110. NuGenesis SDMS: NuGenesis Technologies Corp, Westborough, MA, USA. http://www.nugenesis.com/pages/products/
111. Discovery Studio: Accelrys Inc, San Diego, CA, USA. http:/www.accelrys.com/dstudio/