A novel structure-based encoding for machine-learning applied to the inference of SH3 domain specificity

Bioinformatics

Volumn 22, Issue 19, 2006, Pages 2333-2339

  Ferraro, Enrico ^a   Via, A ^a   Ausiello, G ^a   Helmer Citterich, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; PROLINE; PROTEIN SH3;

ACCURACY; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; COMPLEX FORMATION; CONSENSUS SEQUENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENZYME SPECIFICITY; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; LEARNING; MACHINE; NERVE CELL NETWORK; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN FAMILY; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 33750030012     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 13674811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl403     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aebersold,R. and Mann,M. (2003) Mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Nature, 422, 198-207.
2. Baldi,P. and Brunak,S. (1998) Bioinformatics: The Machine Learning Approach, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
3. Barron,A.R. (1994) Approximation and estimation bounds for artificial neural networks. Mach. Learn., 14, 115-133.
4. Baum,E.B. and Haussler,D. (1990) What size net gives valid generalization? Neural comput., 1, 151-160.
5. Bishop,C.M. (1995) Neural networks for Pattern Recognition (Oxford University Press).
6. Bock,J.R. and Gough,D.A. (2001) Predicting protein-protein interactions from primary structure. Bioinformatics, 17, 455-460.
7. Bork,P. et al. (2004) Protein interaction networks from yeast to human. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 14, 292-299.
8. Bradley,A.P. (1997) The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of the machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recogn., 30, 1145-1159.
9. Brannetti,B. and Helmer-Citterich,M. (2003) iSPOT: A web tool to infer the interaction specificity of families of protein modules. Nucleic Acids Res., 31, 3709-3711.
10. Brannetti,B. et al. (2000) SH3-SPOT: An algorithm to predict preferred ligands to different members of the SH3 gene family. J. Mol. Biol., 298, 313-328.
11. Cesareni,G. et al. (2001) Can we infer peptide recognition specificity mediated by SH3 domains? FEBS Lett., 513, 38-44.
12. Enright,A.J. et al. (1999) Protein interaction maps for complete genomes based on gene fusion events. Nature, 402, 86-90.
13. Feng,S. et al. (1994) Two binding orientations for peptides to the Src SH3 domains: Development of a general model for SH3-ligand interactions. Science, 266, 1241-1247.
14. Gaasterland,T. and Ragan,M.A. (1998) Microbial genescapes: Phyletic and functional patterns of ORF distribution among prokaryotes. Microb. Comp. Genomics, 3, 199-217.
15. Gavin,A.C. et al. (2002) Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature, 415, 141-147.
16. Goh,C.-S. et al. (2000) Co-evolution of proteins with their interaction partners. J. Mol. Biol., 299, 283-293.
17. Henikoff,S. and Henikoff,J.G. (1997) Embedding strategies for effective use of information ifrom multiple sequence alignments. Protein Sci., 6, 698-705.
18. Ho,Y. et al. (2002) Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature, 415, 180-183.
19. Ito,T. et al. (2000) Toward a protein-protein interaction map of the budding yeast: A comprehensive system to examine two-hybrid interactions in all possible combinations between the yeast proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 97, 1143-1147.
20. Kay,B.K. et al. (2000) The importance of being proline: The interaction of proline-rich motifs in signaling proteins with their cognate domains. FASEB J., 14, 231-241.
21. Landgraf,C. et al. (2004) Protein interaction networks by proteome peptide scanning. PLOS Biol., 2, 94-103.
22. Lehrach,W.P. et al. (2006) A regularized discriminative model for the prediction of protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics, 22, 532-540.
23. Lesk,A.M. (1986) Integrated access to sequence and structural data. In Biosequences: Perspectives and User Services in Europe. Saccone,C. (ed). EEC, Bruxelles, pp. 23-28.
24. Li,S.S. (2005) Specificity and versatility of SH3 and other proline-recognition domains: Structural basis and implications for cellular signal transduction. Biochem. J., 390, 641-53.
25. Lim,W.A. et al. (1994) Structural determinants of peptide-binding orientation and of sequence specificity in SH3 domains. Nature, 372, 375-379.
26. Marcotte,E.M. et al. (1999) Detecting protein function and protein-protein interactions from genome sequences. Science, 285, 751-753.
27. Martin,S. et al. (2005) Predicting protein-protein interactions using signature products. Bioinformatics, 21, 218-226.
28. Mayer,B.J. (2001) SH3 domains: Complexity in moderation. J. Cell Sci., 114, 1253-1263.
29. Milik,M. et al. (1998) Application of an artificial neural network to predict specific class I MHC binding peptide sequences. Nature, 16, 753-756.
30. Musacchio,A. (2002) How SH3 domains recognize proline. Adv. Protein Chem., 61, 211-68.
31. Nanni,L. and Lumini,A. (2006) An ensemble of K-local hyperplanes for predicting protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics, 22, 1207-1210.
32. Overbeek,R. et al. (1999) Use of contiguity on the chromosome to predict functional coupling. In Silico Biol., 1, 93-108.
33. Pazos,F. and Valencia,A. (2001) Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein-protein interaction. Protein Eng., 14, 609-614.
34. Pazos,F. and Valencia,A. (2002) In silico two-hybrid system for the selection of physically interacting protein pairs. Proteins, 47, 219-227.
35. Pazos,F. et al. (1997) Correlated mutations contain information about protein-protein interaction. J. Mol. Biol., 271, 511-523.
36. Pellegrini,M. et al. (1999) Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: Protein phylogenetic profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 96, 4285-4288.
37. Reiss,D.J. and Schwikowski,B. (2004) Predicting protein-peptide interactions via a network-based motif sampler. Bioinformatics, 20, 274-282.
38. Rice,P. et al. (2000) EMBOSS: The European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite. Trends in genetics, 16, 276-277.
39. Russell,R.B. et al. (2004) A structural perspective of protein-protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 14, 313-324.
40. Sali,A. (1995) Modeling mutations and homologous proteins. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 4, 437-451.
41. Sparks,A.B. et al. (1996) Distinct ligand preferences of Src homology 3 domains form Src, Yes, Abl, Cortactin, p53bp2, PLCγ, Crk, and Grb2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 93, 1540-1544.
42. Srinivasan,N., Guruprasad,K. and Blundell,T.L. (1996) Comparative modelling of proteins. In Sternberg,M.J.E., Rickwood,D. and Hames,B.D. (eds), Protein Structure Prediction, A practical approach, Oxford University press, Oxford.
43. Sudol,M. (1998) From Src homology domains to other signalling modules: proposal of the 'protein recognition code'. Oncogene, 17, 1469-1474.
44. Tong,A.H. et al. (2002) A combined experimental and computational strategy to define protein interaction networks for peptide recognition modules. Science, 295, 321-324.
45. Uetz,P. et al. (2000) A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature, 403, 623-631.
46. Valencia,A. and Pazos,F. (2002) Computational methods for the prediction of protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 12, 368-373.
47. Wu,C.H. (1997) Artificial neural networks for molecular sequence analysis. Comp. Chem., 21, 237-256.
48. Zhao,Y. et al. (2003) Application of support vector machines for T-cell epitopes prediction. Bioinformatics, 19, 1978-1984.
49. Zhu,H. and Snyder,M. (2003) Protein chip technology. Curr. Opin Chem. Biol., 7, 55-63.