Evaluation of Local Structure Alphabets Based on Residue Burial

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 508-518

  Karchin, Rachel ^a   Cline, Melissa ^b   Karplus, Kevin ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Thermo Fisher Scientific   (United States)

^c University of California Santa Cruz   (United States)

Author keywords

Fold recognition; Hidden Markov model; Local structure alphabet; Multi track HMM; Neighborhood counts; Protein structure prediction; Residue burial; Solvent accessibility

Indexed keywords

SOLVENT;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; GENETIC CONSERVATION; GEOMETRY; MOLECULAR RECOGNITION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; QUALITY CONTROL; RESIDUE ANALYSIS; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

AMINO ACIDS; CONSERVED SEQUENCE; MARKOV CHAINS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, PROTEIN; SOLVENTS;

EID: 2442436935     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.20008     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Karchin R, Cline M, Mandel-Gutfreund Y, Karplus K. Hidden Markov models that use predicted local structure for fold recognition: alphabets of backbone geometry. Proteins 2003;51:504-514.
2. Dean AM, Golding GB. Enzyme evolution explained (sort of). In Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2000, p 6-17.
3. Terp BN, Cooper DN, Christensen IT, Jorgensen FS, Bross P, Gregersen N, Krawczak M. Assessing the relative importance of the biophysical properties of amino acid substitutions associated with human genetic disease. Human Mutation 2002;20:98-109.
4. Sunyaev S, Ramensky V, Koch I, Lathe III W, Kondrashov AS, Bork P. Prediction of deleterious human alleles. Human Molecular Genetics 2001;10:591-597.
5. Saunders CT, Baker D. Evaluation of structural and evolutionary contributions to deleterious mutation prediction. J Mol Biol 2002;322:891-901.
6. Chothia C. Principles that determine the structure of proteins. Annu Rev Biochem 1984;55:537-572.
7. Eisenberg D, McLachlan AD. Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature 1986;319:199-203.
8. Simons KT, Bonneau R, Ruczinski I, Baker D. Ab initio protein structure prediction of CASP III targets using ROSETTA. Protein 1999;Suppl 3:171-176.
9. Betancourt MR, Thirumalai D. Pair potentials for protein folding: choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes. Protein Sci 1999;8:361-319.
10. Cline MS, Karplus K, Lathrop RH, Smith TF, Rogers Jr. RG, Haussler D. Information-theoretic dissection of pairwise contact potentials. Proteins 2002;49:7-14.
11. Baker D, Sali A. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science 2001;294:93-96.
12. Lee B, Richards FM. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol 1971;55:151-176.
13. Shrake A, Rupley JA. Environment and exposure to solvent of protein atoms. J Mol Biol 1973;79:351-371.
14. Richards FM. Areas, volumes, packing and protein structure. Ann Rev Biophys Bioeng 1977;6:151-176.
15. Wodak SJ, Janin J. Analytical approximation to the accessible surface area of proteins. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1980;77:1736-1740.
16. Richmond DJ. Solvent accessible surface area and excluded volume in proteins. J Mol Biol 1984;177:63-89.
17. Wang Y, Levinthal C. A vectorized algorithm for calculating the accessible surface area of macromolecules. J Comput Chem 1991; 12:868-871.
18. Le Grand SM, Merz JKM. Rapid approximation to molecular surface area via the use of boolean logic and lookup tables. J Comput Chem 1993;14:349-352.
19. Barrett C. Investigation of non-pairwise protein structure score functions using sets of decoy structures, PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2001.
20. Berrera M, Molinari H, Fogolari F. Amino acid empirical contact energy definitions for fold recognition in the space of contact maps. BMC Bioinformatics 2003;4:8.
21. Flöckner H, Braxenthaler M, Lackner P, Jaitz M, Ortner M, Sippl MJ. Progress in fold recognition. Proteins 1995;3:376-386.
22. Fariselli P, Casadio R. Prediction of the number of residue contacts in proteins. In Altman R, Bailey TL, Bourne P, Gribskov M, Lengauer T, Shindyalov IN, Ten Eych LF, Weissig H, editors. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology, p 146-151. San Diego, CA: AAAI Press, 2000.
23. Pollastri G, Baldi P, Fariselli P, Casadio R. Prediction of coordination number and relative solvent accessibility in proteins. Proteins 2002;47:142-153.
24. Rost B, Sander C. Conservation and prediction of solvent accessibility in protein families. Proteins 1994;20:216-226.
25. Karchin R. Evaluating local structure alphabets for protein structure prediction. PhD thesis, University of California, 2003. available at http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/rachelk/pubs/rk-thesis.pdf.
26. Holm L, Sander C. Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. J Mol Biol 1993;233:123-138.
27. Holm L, Sander C. Mapping the protein universe. Science 1996;273: 595-603.
28. Rost B. PHD: predicting one-dimensional protein structure by profile based neural networks. Meth Enzymol 1996;266:525-539.
29. Thompson MJ, Goldstein RA. Predicting solvent accessibility: higher accuracy using Bayesian statistics and optimized residue substitution classes. Protein 1996;25:38-47.
30. Richardson CJ, Barlow DJ. The bottom line for prediction of residue solvent accessibility. Protein Eng 1999;12:1051-1054.
31. Naderi-Manesh H, Sadeghi M, Sharhriar A, Moosavi Movahedi AA. Prediction of protein surface accessibility with information theory. Proteins 2001;42:452-459.
32. Rost B, Sander C, Schneider R. Redefining the goals of protein secondary structure prediction. J Mol Biol 1994;235:13-26.
33. Gribskov M, Robinson NL. Use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate sequence matching. Compu Chem 1996;20:25-33.
34. Cline M, Hughey R, Karplus K. Predicting reliable regions in protein sequence alignments. Bioinformatics 2002;18:306-314.
35. Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers 1983;22:2577-2637.
36. Melo F, Sanchez R, Sali A. Statistical potentials for fold assessment. Protein Sci 2002;11:430-448.
37. Dunbrack R. Culling the PDB by resolution and sequence identity, 2001. http://www.fccc.edu/research/labs/dunbrack/culledpdb.html. Accessed 21 August 2001.
38. Gilbrat J, Madej T, Bryant S. Surprising similarities in structure comparison. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1996;6:377-85.
39. Gerstein M, Levitt M. Comprehensive assessment of automatic structural alignment against a manual standard, the SCOP classification of proteins. Protein Sci 1998;7:445-456.
40. Karplus K, Karchin R, Barrett C, Tu S, Cline M, Diekhans M, Grate L, Casper J, Hughey R. What is the value added by human intervention in protein structure prediction? Proteins 2001;45:86-91.
41. McGuffin LJ, Jones DT. Improvement of the genTHREADER method for genomic fold recognition. Bioinformatics 2003;19:874-881.
42. Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. An alternative view of protein fold space. Proteins 2000;38:247-260.
43. Nishikawa K, Ooi T. Radial locations of amino acid residues in a globular protein: correlation with the sequence. J Biochem 1986; 100:1043-1047.
44. Williams RM, Obradovi Z, Mathura V, Braun W, Garner EC, Young J, Takayama S, Brown CJ, Dunker AK. The protein non-folding problem: amino acid determinants of intrinsic order and disorder. In Pac Symp Biocomput 2001, p 89-100.
45. Mandel-Gutfreund Y, Gregoret L. On the significance of alternating patterns of polar and nonpolar residues in beta strands. J Mol Biol 2002;323:453-461.
46. Frishman D, Argos P. Knowledge-based protein secondary structure assignment. Proteins 1995;23:566-579.
47. Bystroff C, Thorsson V, Baker D. HMMSTR: a hidden Markov model for local sequence-structure correlations in proteins. J Mol Biol 2000;301:173-190.
48. Ramachandran GN, Ramakrishnan C, Sasisekharan V. Stereo-chemistry of polypeptide chain configurations. J Mol Biol 1963;7: 95-99.