Context-specific amino acid substitution matrices and their use in the detection of protein homologs

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 910-919

  Goonesekere, Nalin C W ^a,b   Lee, Byungkook ^a,c  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA   (United States)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

CSSM; Environment polarity; Fold recognition; Homology detection; Score matrix; Sequence alignment

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID;

ACCURACY; AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, PROTEIN; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY, AMINO ACID; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY, PROTEIN;

EID: 41149112563     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21775     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990;215:403-410.
2. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997;25: 3389-3402.
3. Vogt G, Etzold T, Argos P. An assessment of amino acid exchange matrices in aligning protein sequences: the twilight zone revisited. J Mol Biol 1995;249:816-831.
4. Blake JD, Cohen FE. Pairwise sequence alignment below the twilight zone. J Mol Biol 2001;307:721-735.
5. Henikoff S, Henikoff JG. Performance evaluation of amino acid substitution matrices. Proteins 1993;17:49-61.
6. Henikoff S, Henikoff JG. Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:10915-10919.
7. Schaffer AA, Aravind L, Madden TL, Shavirin S, Spouge JL, Wolf YI, Koonin EV, Altschul SF. Improving the accuracy of PSI-BLAST protein database searches with composition-based statistics and other refinements. Nucleic Acids Res 2001;29:2994-3005.
8. Yu YK, Wootton JC, Altschul SF. The compositional adjustment of amino acid substitution matrices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100:15688-15693.
9. Yu YK, Altschul SF. The construction of amino acid substitution matrices for the comparison of proteins with non-standard compositions. Bioinformatics 2005;21:902-911.
10. Altschul SF, Wootton JC, Gertz EM, Agarwala R, Morgulis A, Schaffer AA, Yu YK. Protein database searches using compositionally adjusted substitution matrices. FEBS J 2005;272:5101-5109.
11. 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;1:216-26.
12. Johnson MS, May AC, Rodionov MA, Overington JP. Discrimination of common protein folds: application of protein structure to sequence/structure comparisons. Methods Enzymol 1996;266:575-598.
13. Shi J, Blundell TL, Mizuguchi K. FUGUE: sequence-structure homology recognition using environment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. J Mol Biol 2001;310: 243-257.
14. Gelly JC, Chiche L, Gracy J. EvDTree: structure-dependent substitution profiles based on decision tree classification of 3D environments. BMC Bioinformatics 2005;6:4.
15. Rice DW, Eisenberg D. A 3D-1D substitution matrix for protein fold recognition that includes predicted secondary structure of the sequence. J Mol Biol 1997;267:1026-1038.
16. Teodorescu O, Galor T, Pillardy J, Elber R. Enriching the sequence substitution matrix by structural information. Proteins 2004;54:41-48.
17. Tan YH, Huang H, Kihara D. Statistical potential-based amino acid similarity matrices for aligning distantly related protein sequences. Proteins 2006;64:587-600.
18. 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.
19. Brenner SE, Koehl P, Levitt M. The ASTRAL compendium for protein structure and sequence analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28: 254-256.
20. Jung J, Lee B. Protein structure alignment using environmental profiles. Protein Eng 2000;13:535-543.
21. Lee B, Richards FM. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol 1971;55:379-400.
22. Park J, Karplus K, Barrett C, Hughey R, Haussler D, Hubbard T, Chothia C. Sequence comparisons using multiple sequences detect three times as many remote homologues as pairwise methods. J Mol Biol 1998;284:1201-1210.
23. Kinch LN, Grishin NV. Evolution of protein structures and functions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2002;12:400-408.
24. Green RE, Brenner SE. Bootstrapping and normalization for enhanced evaluations of pairwise sequence comparison. Proc IEEE 2002;9:1834-1847.
25. Van Walle I, Lasters I, Wyns L. SABmark-a benchmark for sequence alignment that covers the entire known fold space. Bioinformatics 2005;21:1267-1268.
26. Sauder JM, Arthur JW, Dunbrack RLJ. Large-scale comparison of protein sequence alignment algorithms with structure alignments. Proteins 2000;40:6-22.
27. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:235-242.
28. Altschul SF. Amino acid substitution matrices from an information theoretic perspective. J Mol Biol 1991;219:555-565.
29. Bowie JU, Luthy R, Eisenberg D. A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science 1991;253:164-170.
30. von Ohsen N, Sommer I, Zimmer R. Profile-profile alignment: a powerful tool for protein structure prediction. Pac Symp Biocomput 2003;8:252-263.
31. Mittelman D, Sadreyev R, Grishin N. Probabilistic scoring measures for profile-profile comparison yield more accurate short seed alignments. Bioinformatics 2003;19:1531-1539.
32. Yona G, Levitt M. Within the twilight zone: a sensitive profile-profile comparison tool based on information theory. J Mol Biol 2002;315:1257-1275.
33. Jones DT. Protein structure prediction in the postgenomic era. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2000;10:371-379.
34. Friedberg I, Jaroszewski L, Ye Y, Godzik A. The interplay of fold recognition and experimental structure determination in structural genomics. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2004;14:307-312.
35. Jones DT. GenTHREADER: an efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. J Mol Biol 1999;287: 797-815.
36. Kelley LA, MacCallum RM, Sternberg MJ. Enhanced genome annotation using structural profiles in the program 3D-PSSM. J Mol Biol 2000;299:499-520.
37. Fischer D. Hybrid fold recognition: combining sequence derived properties with evolutionary information. Pac Symp Biocomput 2000;119-130.
38. Kihara D, Skolnick J. Microbial genomes have over 72% structure assignment by the threading algorithm PROSPECTOR-Q. Proteins 2004;55:464-473.
39. Przybylski D, Rost B. Improving fold recognition without folds. J Mol Biol 2004;341:255-269.
40. Thiele R, Zimmer R, Lengauer T. Protein threading by recursive dynamic programming. J Mol Biol 1999;290:757-779.
41. Jones DT, Swindells MB. Getting the most from PSI-BLAST. Trends Biochem Sci 2002;27:161-164.
42. Skolnick J, Kihara D, Zhang Y. Development and large scale benchmark testing of the PROSPECTOR_3 threading algorithm. Proteins 2004;56:502-518.
43. Karlin S, Altschul SF. Methods for assessing the statistical significance of molecular sequence features by using general scoring schemes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990;87:2264-2268.