An integrated system for studying residue coevolution in proteins

Bioinformatics

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 290-292

  Yip, Kevin Y ^a   Patel, Prianka ^b   Kim, Philip M ^b   Engelman, Donald M ^b   Mcdermott, Drew ^a   Gerstein, Mark ^a,b  

^a Yale University   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; COEVOLUTION; CORRELATION FUNCTION; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; FILTRATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION SYSTEM; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; SIGNAL DETECTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 38349135391     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 13674811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm584     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Dekker,J.P. et al. (2004) A perturbation-based method for calculating explicit likelihood of evolutionary co-variance in multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics, 20, 1565-1572.
2. Dimmic,M.W. et al. (2005) Detecting coevolving amino-acid sites using Bayesian mutational mapping. Bioinformatics, 21 (Suppl. 1), i126-i135.
3. Elcock,A.H. and McCammon,J.A. (2001) Identification of protein oligomerization states by analysis of interface conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 98, 2990-2994.
4. Galitsky,B. (2003) Revealing the set of mutually correlated positions for the protein families of immunoglobulin fold. In Silico Biol., 3, 0022.
5. Gerstein,M. et al. (1994) Volume changes in protein evolution. J. Mol. Biol., 236, 1061-1078.
6. Gloor,G.B. et al. (2005) Mutual information in protein multiple sequence alignments reveals two classes of coevolving positions. Biochemistry, 44, 7156-7165.
7. Gobel,U. et al. (1994) Correlated mutations and residue contacts in proteins. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet., 18, 309-317.
8. Goh,C.S. et al. (2000) Co-evolution of proteins with their interaction partners. J. Mol. Biol., 299, 293-293,
9. Guharoy,M. and Chakrabarti,P. (2005) Conservation and relative importance of residues across protein-protein interfaces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 15447-15452.
10. Halperin,I. et al. (2006) Correlated mutations: Advances and limitations. A study on fusion proteins and on the Cohasin-Dockarin families. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinfo., 63, 832-845.
11. Larson,S.M. et al. (2000) Analysis of covariation in an SH3 domain sequence alignment applications in tertiary contact prediction and the design of compensating hydrophobic core substitutions. J. Mol. Biol. 303, 433-446.
12. Lockless,S.W. and Ranganathan,R. (1999) Evolutionarily conserved pathways of energetic connectivity in protein families. Science, 286, 295-299.
13. McLachlan,A.D. (1971) Tests for comparing related amino-acid sequences cytochrome c and cytochrome c551. J. Mol. Biol., 61, 409-424.
14. Martin,L.C. et al. (2005) Using information theory to search for co-evolving residues in proteins. Bioinformatics, 21, 4116-4124.
15. Pazos,F. et al. (1997) Correlated mutations contain information about protein-protein interaction. J. Mol. Biol., 271, 511-523.
16. Pazos,F. and Valencia,A. (2002) In silico two-hybrid system for the selection of physically interacting protein pairs. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet., 47, 219-227.
17. Pellegrini,M. et al. (1999) Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: Protein phylogenetic profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 96, 4285-4288.
18. Pollock,D.D. et al. (1999) Coevolving protein residues: Maximum likelihood identification and relationship to structure. J. Mol. Biol., 287, 187-198.
19. Socolich,M. et al. (2005) Evolutionary information for specifying a protein fold. Nature, 437, 512-518.
20. Suel,G.M. et al. (2003) Evolutionarily conserved networks of residues mediate allosteric communication in proteins. Nat. Struct. Biol., 10, 59-69.