Protein structure comparison: implications for the nature of 'fold space', and structure and function prediction

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 393-398

  Kolodny, Rachel ^a   Petrey, Donald ^a   Honig, Barry ^a  

^a HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEINS; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY, PROTEIN; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 33744805069     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2006.04.007     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Richardson J.S. The anatomy and taxonomy of protein structure. Adv Protein Chem 34 (1981) 167-339
2. Andreeva A., Howorth D., Brenner S.E., Hubbard T.J.P., Chothia C., and Murzin A.G. SCOP database in 2004: refinements integrate structure and sequence family data. Nucleic Acids Res 32 (2004) D226-D229
3. Pearl F., Todd A., Sillitoe I., Dibley M., Redfern O., Lewis T., Bennett C., Marsden R., Grant A., Lee D., et al. The CATH domain structure database and related resources Gene3D and DHS provide comprehensive domain family information for genome analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 33 (2005) D247-D251
4. Holm L., and Sander C. Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. J Mol Biol 233 (1993) 123-138
5. Shindyalov I.N., and Bourne P.E. Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. Protein Eng 11 (1998) 739-747
6. Taylor W.R., and Orengo C.A. Protein structure alignment. J Mol Biol 208 (1989) 1-22
7. Subbiah S., Laurents D.V., and Levitt M. Structural similarity of DNA-binding domains of bacteriophage repressors and the globin core. Curr Biol 3 (1993) 141-148
8. Yang A.-S., and Honig B. An integrated approach to the analysis and modeling of protein sequences and structures. I. Protein structural alignment and a quantitative measure for protein structural distance. J Mol Biol 301 (2000) 665-678
9. ••].
10. Kleywegt G.J. Use of non-crystallographic symmetry in protein structure refinement. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 52 (1996) 842-857
11. Madej T., Gibrat J.F., and Bryant S.H. Threading a database of protein cores. Proteins 23 (1995) 356-369
12. Eidhammer I., Jonassen I., and Taylor W.R. Structure comparison and structure patterns. J Comput Biol 7 (2000) 685-716
13. Kolodny R., and Linial N. Approximate protein structural alignment in polynomial time. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 (2004) 12201-12206. A theoretical study showing that protein structural alignment can be solved in (high) polynomial time by exhaustive enumeration of all rotations and translations of one structure with respect to the other.
14. Rogen P., and Fain B. Automatic classification of protein structure by using Gauss integrals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100 (2003) 119-124
15. Erdmann M. Protein similarity from knot theory and geometric convolution. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology (RECOMB), March 2004. San Diego, USA (2004), ACM Press 195-204
16. Ye Y., and Godzik A. Flexible structure alignment by chaining aligned fragment pairs allowing twists. Bioinformatics 19 (2003) II246-II255
17. Shatsky M., Nussinov R., and Wolfson H.J. FlexProt: alignment of flexible protein structures without a predefinition of hinge regions. J Comput Biol 11 (2004) 83-106
18. Friedberg I., and Godzik A. Connecting the protein structure universe by using sparse recurring fragments. Structure 13 (2005) 1213-1224. The authors study the structure of protein fold space, using a new interfold similarity measure based on the frequency of fragments shared between folds. A web-based application that accompanies this work enables interactive probing of their perspective of fold space. They also show that their similarity measure correlates well with a function similarity measure.
19. Gribskov M., and Robinson N.L. The use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate sequence matching. Comput Chem 20 (1996) 25-343
20. Novotny M., Madsen D., and Kleywegt G.J. Evaluation of protein fold comparison servers. Proteins 54 (2004) 260-270
21. Sierk M.L., and Pearson W.R. Sensitivity and selectivity in protein structure comparison. Protein Sci 13 (2004) 773-785
22. Leplae R., and Hubbard T.J. MaxBench: evaluation of sequence and structure comparison methods. Bioinformatics 18 (2002) 494-495
23. Kolodny R., Koehl P., and Levitt M. Comprehensive evaluation of protein structure alignment methods: scoring by geometric measures. J Mol Biol 346 (2005) 1173-1188. This study describes a large-scale comparison of six publicly available protein structural alignment methods. The authors argue that, instead of comparing the methods using ROC curves and a classification 'gold standard', one can directly compare different alignments. This strategy also enables the definition of a method, denoted 'best-of-all', that runs several structural alignment algorithms and returns their best alignment.
24. Holm L., and Sander C. The FSSP database: fold classification based on structure-structure alignment of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 24 (1996) 206-209
25. Holm L., and Sander C. Globin fold in a bacterial toxin. Nature 361 (1993) 309
26. Shindyalov I.N., and Bourne P.E. An alternative view of protein fold space. Proteins 38 (2000) 247-260
27. Harrison A., Pearl F., Mott R., Thornton J., and Orengo C. Quantifying the similarities within fold space. J Mol Biol 323 (2002) 909-926
28. Kihara D., and Skolnick J. The PDB is a covering set of small protein structures. J Mol Biol 334 (2003) 793-802
29. Hou J., Sims G.E., Zhang C., and Kim S.H. A global representation of the protein fold space. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100 (2003) 2386-2390
30. Krishna S.S., and Grishin N.V. Structural drift: a possible path to protein fold change. Bioinformatics 21 (2005) 1308-1310. The authors describe a mechanism of evolution of protein structures and an example of it, coined 'structural drift'. Structural drift is characterized by proteins that are a hybrid of two overlapping subdomains, which are similar to proteins with very different structures.
31. Shin D.H., Lou Y., Jancarik J., Yokota H., Kim R., and Kim S.-H. Crystal structure of TM1457 from Thermotoga maritima. J Struct Biol 152 (2005) 113-117
32. Tress M., Tai C.H., Wang G., Ezkurdia I., López G., Valencia A., Lee B., and Dunbrack Jr. R.L. Domain definition and target classification for CASP6. Proteins 61 (2005) 8-18
33. Petrey D., and Honig B. GRASP2: visualization, surface properties, and electrostatics of macromolecular structures and sequences. Methods Enzymol 374 (2003) 492-509
34. Petrey D., and Honig B. Protein structure prediction: inroads to biology. Mol Cell 20 (2005) 811-819. This review of the overall protein structure prediction process contains a discussion of the importance of the description of fold space in template-based modeling.
35. Moult J., Fidelis K., Tramontano A., Rost B., and Hubbard T. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP) - round VI. Proteins 61 (2005) 3-7
36. •,40] are all variations on a theme involving the identification of local similarities between a protein whose structure is to be predicted and multiple template structures that generally have different folds/topologies. The fragments are eventually assembled into a final compact fold. The success of these methods at CASP6 demonstrates the importance of understanding the local relationships between protein structures that the hierarchical classification schemes obscure.
37. •].
38. •].
39. •].
40. Kosinski J., Cymerman I.A., Feder M., Kurowski M.A., Sasin J.M., and Bujnicki J.M. A "FRankenstein's monster" approach to comparative modeling: merging the finest fragments of fold-recognition models and iterative model refinement aided by 3D structure evaluation. Proteins 53 (2003) 369-379
41. Szustakowski J.D., Kasif S., and Weng Z. Less is more: towards an optimal universal description of protein folds. Bioinformatics 21 (2005) II66-II71
42. Friedberg I., and Godzik A. Fragnostic: walking through protein structure space. Nucleic Acids Res 33 (2005) W249-W251
43. Hou J., Jun S.R., Zhang C., and Kim S.H. Global mapping of the protein structure space and application in structure-based inference of protein function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 3651-3656. The authors extend their previous work and construct a three-dimensional map of 'protein structure space' using multidimensional scaling (MDS). After showing that proteins with similar structures and functions co-localize in the map, they use the structure space map (SSM) distance for function prediction. For this task, SSM distance outperforms structural and sequence similarity measures.