Fast molecular shape matching using contact maps

Journal of Computational Biology

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 131-143

  Agarwal, Pankaj K ^a   Mustafa, Nabil H ^b   Wang, Yusu ^c  

^a Duke University   (United States)

^b LAHORE UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES   (Pakistan)

^c Ohio State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Contact maps; Graph theory; Molecular structures; Shape matching

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; MOLECULAR MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; THEORY;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PROTEINS;

EID: 34248229363     PISSN: 10665277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2007.0004     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Akutsu, T., and Miyano, S. 1999. On the approximation of protein threading. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 210, 261-275.
2. Caprara, A., and Lancia, G. 2002. Structural alignment of large-size proteins via lagrangian relaxation. RECOMB.
3. Erdös, P., and Szekeres, G. 1935. A combinatorial problem in geometry. Composit. Math. 2, 463-470.
4. Feige, U., Kortsarz, G., and Peleg, D. 2000. The dense k-subgraph problem. J. Algorithms.
5. Francesco, D., Garnier, V., and Munson, P. 1996. Improving protein secondary structure prediction with aligned homologous sequences. Protein Sci. 5, 106-113.
6. Garey, M., and Johnson, D. 1979.Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.
7. Gerstein, M., and Levitt, M. 1998. Comprehensive assessment of automatic structural alignment against a manual standard. Protein Sci. 7, 445-456.
8. Godzik, A. 1996. The structural alignment between two proteins: is there a unique answer? Protein Sci. 5, 377-385.
9. Goldman, D., Istrail, S., and Papadimitriou, C.H. 1999. Algorithmic aspects of protein structure similarity. IEEE Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. 512-522.
10. Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H., et al. 2002. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins Struct. Fund. Genet. 47, 409-443.
11. Holm, L., and Sander, C. 1993. Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. J. Mol. Biol. 233, 123-138.
12. Holm, L., and Sander, C. 1996. The FSSP database: fold classification based on structure-structure alignment of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 206-209.
13. Klein, P. 1998. Computing the edit-distance between unrooted ordered trees. Proc. 6th Annu. Eur. Symp., 91-102.
14. Knuth, D.E. 1973. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1, Fundamental Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
15. Kolinski, A., and Skolnick, J. 1994. Monte Carlo simulations of protein folding: lattice model and interaction scheme. Proteins 18, 338-352.
16. Kortsarz, G., and Peleg, D. 1993. On choosing a dense subgraph. Proc. 34th Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. 692-703.
17. Lancia, G., Carr, R., Walenz, B., et al. 2001. 101 optimal pdb structure alignments: a branch-and-cut algorithm for the maximum contact map overlap problem. RECOMB 193-202.
18. Leach, A.R. 1996. Molecular Modelling: Principles and Applications. Pearson Education Ltd., London.
19. Maiorov, V., and Crippen, G. 1994. Significance of root-mean-square deviation in comparing three-dimensional structures of globular proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 235, 625-634.
20. Taylor, W., and Orengo, C. 1989. Protein structure alignment. J. Mol. Biol. 208, 1-22.
21. Taylor, W., and Orengo, C. 1996. SSAP: sequential structure alignment program for protein structure comparison. Methods Enzymol. 266, 617-635.
22. Verbitsky, O. 1994. On the largest common subgraph problem. Personal communication.