A novel approach to structural alignment using realistic structural and environmental information

Protein Science

Volumn 14, Issue 12, 2005, Pages 2935-2946

  Chen, Yu ^a   Crippen, Gordon M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Database search; Flexible alignment; Fold recognition; Structural alignment; Structural genomics

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA BASE; DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MOLECULAR RECOGNITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; STATISTICS; STRUCTURAL GENOMICS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, PROTEIN; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY, PROTEIN;

EID: 28844438017     PISSN: 09618368     EISSN: 1469896X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1110/ps.051428205     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Altschul, S.F. and Erickson, B.W. 1986. A nonlinear measure of subalignment similarity and its significance levels. Bull. Math. Biol. 48: 617-632.
2. Berman, H.M., Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., Gilliland, G., Bhat, T.N., Weissig, H., Shindyalov, I.N., and Bourne, P.E. 2000. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28: 235-242.
3. Bowie, J.U., Luthy, R., and Eisenberg, D. 1991. A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science 253: 164-170.
4. Bron, C. and Kerbosch, J. 1973. Finding all cliques of an undirected graph [H]. Commun. ACM. 16: 575-577.
5. Fischer, D., Elofsson, A., Rice, D., and Eisenberg, D. 1996. Assessing the performance of fold recognition methods by means of a comprehensive benchmark. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 1996: 300-318.
6. Gan, H.H., Perlow, R.A., Roy, S., Ko, J., Wu, M., Huang, J., Yan, S., Nicoletta, A., Vafai, J., Sun, D., et al. 2002. Analysis of protein sequence/structure similarity relationships. Biophys. J. 83: 2781-2791.
7. Gribskov, M. and Robinson, N.L. 1996. Use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate sequence matching. Comput. Chem. 20: 25-33.
8. Holm, L. and Sander, C. 1993. Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. J. Mol. Biol. 233: 123-138.
9. Jaroszewski, L., Li, W., and Godzik, A. 2002. In search for more accurate alignments in the twilight zone. Protein Sci. 11: 1702-1713.
10. Kabsch, W. and Sander, C. 1983. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers 22: 2577-2637.
11. Karlin, S. and Altschul, S.F. 1990. Methods for assessing the statistical significance of molecular sequence features by using general scoring schemes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 87: 2264-2268.
12. Kolodny, R., Koehl, P., and Levitt, M. 2005. Comprehensive evaluation of protein structure alignment methods: Scoring by geometric measures. J. Mol. Biol. 346: 1173-1188.
13. Koradi, R., Billeter, M., and Wüthrich, K. 1996. MOLMOL: A program for display and analysis of macromolecular structures. J. Mol. Graph. 14: 51-55.
14. Kuhl, F.S., Crippen, G.M., and Friesen, D.K. 1984. A combinatorial algorithm for calculating ligand-binding. J. Comp. Chem. 5: 24-34.
15. Lee, B. and Richards, F.M. 1971. The interpretation of protein structures: Estimation of static accessibility. J. Mol. Biol. 55: 379-400.
16. Levitt, M. and Gerstein, M. 1998. A unified statistical framework for sequence comparison and structure comparison. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95: 5913-5920.
17. Maiorov, V.N. and Crippen G.M. 1995. Size-independent comparison of protein three-dimensional structures. Proteins 22: 273-283.
18. Needleman, S.B. and Wunsch, C.D. 1970. A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 48: 443-453.
19. Norvell, J.C. and Machalek, A.Z. 2000. Structural genomics programs at the US National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Nat. Struct. Biol. S7: 931.
20. Orengo, C.A., Michie, A.D., Jones, S., Jones, D.T., Swindells, M.B., and Thornton, J.M. 1997. CATH: A hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure 5: 1093-1108.
21. Rice, D.W. and Eisenberg, D. 1997. A 3D-1D substitution matrix for protein fold recognition that includes predicted secondary structure of the sequence. J. Mol. Biol. 267: 1026-1038.
22. Šali, A. and Blundell, T.L. 1990. Definition of general topological equivalence in protein structures: A procedure involving comparison of properties and relationships through simulated annealing and dynamic programming. J. Mol. Biol. 212: 403-428.
23. Shapiro, J. and Brutlag, D. 2004. FoldMiner: Structural motif discovery using an improved superposition algorithm. Protein Sci. 13: 278-294.
24. Shi, J., Blundell, T.L., and Mizuguchi, K. 2001. FUGUE: Sequence-structure homology recognition using environment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. J. Mol. Biol. 310: 243-257.
25. Shindyalov, I.N. and Bourne, P.E. 1998. Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. Protein Eng. 11: 739-747.
26. Sierk, M.L. and Pearson, W.R. 2004. Sensitivity and selectivity in protein structure comparison. Protein Sci. 13: 773-785.
27. Suyama, M., Matsuo, Y., and Nishikawa, K. 1997. Comparison of protein structures using 3D profile alignment. J. Mol. Evol. 44S: 163-173.
28. Tang, C.L., Xie, L., Koh, I.Y., Posy, S., Alexov, E., and Honig, B. 2003. On the role of structural information in remote homology detection and sequence alignment: New methods using hybrid sequence profiles. J. Mol. Biol. 334: 1043-1062.
29. Taylor, W.R. 1999. Protein structure comparison using iterated double dynamic programming. Protein Sci. 8: 654-665.
30. Yang, A.S. and Honig, B. 2000. An integrated approach to the analysis and modeling of protein sequences and structures. III. A comparative study of sequence conservation in protein structural families using multiple structural alignments. J. Mol. Biol. 301: 691-711.
31. Ye, Y. and Godzik, A. 2004. Database searching by flexible protein structure alignment. Protein Sci. 13: 1841-1850.