Accuracy of sequence alignment and fold assessment using reduced amino acid alphabets

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 63, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 986-995

  Melo, Francisco ^a   Marti Renom, Marc A ^b,c  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^b Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Fold recognition; Reduced amino acid alphabets; Sequence alignment; Statistical potentials

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; PROTEIN;

ACCURACY; ALGORITHM; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; MODEL; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; AMINO ACIDS; CONSENSUS SEQUENCE; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; OXIDATION-REDUCTION; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEINS; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY, PROTEIN;

EID: 33646808944     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.20881     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Creighton TE. Protein folding. 2nd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman Company; 1993.
2. Schafmeister CE, LaPorte SL, Miercke LJ, Stroud RM. A designed four helix bundle protein with native-like structure. Nat Struct Biol 1997;4:1039-1046.
3. Trinquier G, Sanejouand Y. Which effective property of amino acids is best preserved by the genetic code? Protein Eng 1998;11:153-169.
4. Riddle DS, Santiago JV, Bray-Hall ST, Doshi N, Grantcharova VP, Yi Q, Baker D. Functional rapidly folding proteins from simplified amino acid sequences. Nat Struct Biol 1997;4:805-809.
5. Kuznetsov IB, Rackovsky S. Discriminative ability with repect to amino acid types: assessing the performance of knowledge-based potentials without threading. Proteins 2002;49:266-284.
6. Murphy LR, Wallqvist A, Levy RM. Simplified amino acid alphabets for protein fold recognition and implications for folding. Protein Eng 2000;13:149-152.
7. Wang J, Wang W. A computational approach to simplifying the protein folding alphabet. Nat Struct Biol 1999;6:1033-1038.
8. Andersen CAF, Brunak S. Representation of protein-sequence information by amino acid subalphabets. AI Magazine 2004;25:97-104.
9. Sous AD, Rackovsky S. Optimized representations and maximal information in proteins. Proteins 2000;38:149-164.
10. Esteve JG, Falceto F. A general clustering approach with application to the Miyazawa-Jernigan potentials for amino acids. Proteins 2004;55:999-1004.
11. Li T, Fan K, Wang J, Wang W. Reduction of protein sequence complexity by residue grouping. Protein Eng 2003;16:323-330.
12. Fan K, Wang W. What is the minimum number of letters required to fold a protein? J Mol Biol 2003;328:921-926.
13. Dill KA, Chan HS. From Levinthal to pathways to funnels. Nat Struct Biol 1997;4:10-19.
14. Wolynes PG. As simple as can be? Nat Struct Biol 1997;4:871-874.
15. Johnson MS, Overington JP. A structural basis for sequence comparisons. An evaluation of scoring methodologies. J Mol Biol 1993;233:716-738.
16. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Biol 1996;256:623-644.
17. Henikoff S, Henikoff JG. Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:10915-10919.
18. Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1989.
19. Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J Mol Biol 1995;247:536-540.
20. Andreeva A, Howorth D, Brenner SE, Hubbard TJ, Chothia C, Murzin AG. SCOP database in 2004: refinements integrate structure and sequence family data. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32:226-229.
21. Sali A, Blundell TL. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol 1993;234:779-815.
22. Needleman SB, Wunsch CD. A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. J Mol Biol 1970;48:443-453.
23. Berman HM, Battistuz T, Bhat TN, Bluhm WF, Bourne PE, Burkhardt K, Feng Z, Gilliland GL, Iype L, Jain S, Fagan P, Marvin J, Padilla D, Ravichandran V, Schneider B, Thanki N, Weissig H, Westbrook JD, Zardecki C. The Protein Data Bank. Acta Crystallogr D 2002;58:899-907.
24. Melo F, Sanchez R, Sali A. Statistical potentials for fold assessment. Protein Sci 2002;11:430-448.
25. Sippl MJ. Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1990;213:859-883.
26. Marti-Renom MA, Madhusudhan MS, Fiser A, Rost B, Sali A. Reliability of assessment of protein structure prediction methods. Structure 2002;10:435-440.
27. Marti-Renom MA, Ilyin VA, Sali A. DBAli: A database of protein structure alignments. Bioinformatics 2001;17:746-747.
28. Ortiz AE, Strauss CE, Olmea O. MAMMOTH (matching molecular models obtained from theory): an automated method for model comparison. Protein Sci 2002;11:2606-2621.
29. Sanchez R, Sali A. Large-scale protein structure modeling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998;95:13597-13602.
30. Yue K, Fiebig KM, Thomas PD, Chan HS, Shakhnovich EI, Dill KA. A test of lattice protein folding algorithms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995;92:325-329.
31. Chan HS, Dill KA. Comparing folding codes for proteins and polymers. Proteins 1996;24:335-344.
32. Thomas PD, Dill KA. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: how accurate are they? J Mol Biol 1996;257:457-469.
33. Overington J, Donnelly D, Johnson MS, Sali A, Blundell TL. Environment-specific amino acid substitution tables: tertiary templates and prediction of protein folds. Protein Sci 1992;1:216-226.
34. Solis AD, Rackovsky S. Optimally informative backbone structural propensities in proteins. Proteins 2002;48:463-486.