The interplay of fold recognition and experimental structure determination in structural genomics

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 307-312

  Friedberg, Iddo ^a   Jaroszewski, Lukasz ^b   Ye, Yuzhen ^a   Godzik, Adam ^a,b  

^a BURNHAM INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BACILLUS SUBTILIS; CAENORHABDITIS; CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS; DATA BASE; GENE SEQUENCE; GENE STRUCTURE; GENOMICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; MOLECULAR RECOGNITION; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; THERMOTOGA MARITIMA;

ANIMALS; GENOMICS; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEINS;

BACILLUS SUBTILIS; CAENORHABDITIS; CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS; NEGIBACTERIA; POSIBACTERIA; THERMOTOGA; THERMOTOGA MARITIMA;

EID: 2942576133     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2004.04.005     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Berman H.M., Westbrook J., Feng Z., Gilliland G., Bhat T.N., Weissig H., Shindyalov I.N., Bourne P.E. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28:2000;235-242
2. Shapiro L., Lima C.D. The Argonne Structural Genomics Workshop: Lamaze class for the birth of a new science. Structure. 6:1998;265-267
3. Sali A. 100, 000 protein structures for the biologist. Nat Struct Biol. 5:1998;1029-1032
4. Vitkup D., Melamud E., Moult J., Sander C. Completeness in structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol. 8:2001;559-566
5. Brenner S.E. A tour of structural genomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2:2001;801-809
6. Burley S.K., Almo S.C., Bonanno J.B., Capel M., Chance M.R., Gaasterland T., Lin D., Sali A., Studier F.W., Swaminathan S. Structural genomics: beyond the human genome project. Nat Genet. 23:1999;151-157
7. The Protein Structure Initiative on World Wide Web URL: http://www.nigms.nih.gov/psi/
8. Andreeva A., Howorth D., Brenner S.E., Hubbard T.J., Chothia C., Murzin A.G. SCOP database in 2004: refinements integrate structure and sequence family data. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:2004;D226-D229
9. Orengo C.A., Pearl F.M., Thornton J.M. The CATH domain structure database. Methods Biochem Anal. 44:2003;249-271
10. Linial M., Yona G. Methodologies for target selection in structural genomics. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 73:2000;297-320
11. Wolf Y.I., Grishin N.V., Koonin E.V. Estimating the number of protein folds and families from complete genome data. J Mol Biol. 299:2000;897-905
12. Liu J., Rost B. Target space for structural genomics revisited. Bioinformatics. 18:2002;922-933
13. Heger A., Holm L. More for less in structural genomics. J Struct Funct Genomics. 4:2003;57-66
14. Vucetic S., Brown C.J., Dunker A.K., Obradovic Z. Flavors of protein disorder. Proteins. 52:2003;573-584 A review of pioneering efforts in the prediction of protein disorder.
15. Linding R., Jensen L.J., Diella F., Bork P., Gibson T.J., Russell R.B. Protein disorder prediction: implications for structural proteomics. Structure. 11:2003;1453-1459 A survey of the most pressing, unexpected problem for both structural genomics and structure prediction efforts - the existence of proteins with no well-defined unique structure.
16. Baker D., Sali A. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science. 294:2001;93-96
17. Rychlewski L., Jaroszewski L., Li W., Godzik A. Comparison of sequence profiles. Strategies for structural predictions using sequence information. Protein Sci. 9:2000;232-241
18. Gough J., Karplus K., Hughey R., Chothia C. Assignment of homology to genome sequences using a library of hidden Markov models that represent all proteins of known structure. J Mol Biol. 313:2001;903-919
19. McGuffin L.J., Street S.A., Sorensen S.A., Jones D.T. The Genomic Threading Database. Bioinformatics. 20:2004;131-132
20. Jones D.T. GenTHREADER: an efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. J Mol Biol. 287:1999;797-815
21. Kinch L.N., Wrabl J.O., Krishna S.S., Majumdar I., Sadreyev R.I., Qi Y., Pei J., Cheng H., Grishin N.V. CASP5 assessment of fold recognition target predictions. Proteins. 53(suppl 6):2003;395-409
22. Altschul S.F., Madden T.L., Schaffer A.A., Zhang J., Zhang Z., Miller W., Lipman D.J. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25:1997;3389-3402
23. Sonnhammer E.L., Eddy S.R., Durbin R. Pfam: a comprehensive database of protein domain families based on seed alignments. Proteins. 28:1997;405-420
24. Bujnicki J.M., Elofsson A., Fischer D., Rychlewski L. Structure prediction meta server. Bioinformatics. 17:2001;750-751
25. Ginalski K., Elofsson A., Fischer D., Rychlewski L. 3D-Jury: a simple approach to improve protein structure predictions. Bioinformatics. 19:2003;1015-1018 A short review of the current champion of fold recognition approaches - jury systems that develop consensus predictions based on individual methods.
26. Xu J., Li M., Kim D., Xu Y. Raptor: optimal protein threading by linear programming. J Bioinformatics Computat Biol. 1:2003;95-119 A new breath of life in genuine, structure-based threading. Novel algorithms based on an integer programming approach make a dent in the problem of optimizing an alignment with a non-local scoring function.
27. Heger A., Holm L. Exhaustive enumeration of protein domain families. J Mol Biol. 328:2003;749-767 ADDA, an automated domain decomposition and clustering algorithm, provides a detailed list of possible structural genomics targets, albeit at a relatively low threshold for clustering (which results in a very high number of potential targets).
28. ••], the clustering was done on the basis of a relatively simple sequence similarity measure (BLAST).
29. Enright A.J., Kunin V., Ouzounis C.A. Protein families and TRIBES in genome sequence space. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2003;4632-4638
30. Sadreyev R.I., Baker D., Grishin N.V. Profile-profile comparisons by COMPASS predict intricate homologies between protein families. Protein Sci. 12:2003;2262-2272
31. Yona G., Levitt M. Within the twilight zone: a sensitive profile-profile comparison tool based on information theory. J Mol Biol. 315:2002;1257-1275
32. Marti-Renom M.A., Madhusudhan M.S., Sali A. Alignment of protein sequences by their profiles. Protein Sci. 13:2004;1071-1087
33. Edgar RC, Sjolander K: COACH: profile-profile alignment of protein families using hidden Markov models. Bioinformatics 2004, in press.
34. Westbrook J., Feng Z., Chen L., Yang H., Berman H.M. The Protein Data Bank and structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2003;489-491 A description of the paradigm-redefining resource developed by the structural genomics community - a database of structure determination targets, complete with information on failures and secrets about future plans.
35. Goh C.S., Lan N., Douglas S.M., Wu B., Echols N., Smith A., Milburn D., Montelione G.T., Zhao H., Gerstein M. Mining the structural genomics pipeline: identification of protein properties that affect high-throughput experimental analysis. J Mol Biol. 336:2004;115-130
36. Page R., Grzechnik S.K., Canaves J.M., Spraggon G., Kreusch A., Kuhn P., Stevens R.C., Lesley S.A. Shotgun crystallization strategy for structural genomics: an optimized two-tiered crystallization screen against the Thermotoga maritima proteome. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 59:2003;1028-1037
37. Bourne PE, Allerston CKJ, Krebs W, Li W, Shindyalov IN, Godzik A, Friedberg I, Liu T, Wild D, Hwang S et al.: The status of structural genomics defined through the analysis of current targets and structures. In Proceedings of the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing; 2004 Jan 6-10; Hawaii. Edited by Altman RB, Dunker AK, Hunter L, Jung TA, Klein TE. World Scientific Press: 2004.
38. Editorial: PSI-phase 1 and beyond. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2004, 11:201.
39. Siew N., Fischer D. Analysis of singleton ORFans in fully sequenced microbial genomes. Proteins. 53:2003;241-251 A second biggest open question in structural genomics and fold recognition: what are these sequences?
40. Luz J.G., Hassig C.A., Pickle C., Godzik A., Meyer B.J., Wilson I.A. XOL-1, primary determinant of sexual fate in C. elegans, is a GHMP kinase family member and a structural prototype for a class of developmental regulators. Genes Dev. 17:2003;977-990
41. Bakolitsa C, Schwarzenbacher R, McMullan D, Brinen L, Canaves J, Dai X, Deacon A, Elsliger M, Eshagi S, Floyd R et al.: Crystal structure of a hypothetical protein (TM0875) from Thermotoga maritima at 2.00 Å resolution reveals a new fold. Proteins 2004, in press.
42. Aramini J.M., Mills J.L., Xiao R., Acton T.B., Wu M.J., Szyperski T., Montelione G.T. Resonance assignments for the hypothetical protein yggU from Escherichia coli. J Biomol NMR. 27:2003;285-286
43. Bonneau R., Strauss C.E., Rohl C.A., Chivian D., Bradley P., Malmstrom L., Robertson T., Baker D. De novo prediction of three-dimensional structures for major protein families. J Mol Biol. 322:2002;65-78
44. Kihara D., Zhang Y., Lu H., Kolinski A., Skolnick J. Ab initio protein structure prediction on a genomic scale: application to the Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 99:2002;5993-5998