Computing highly correlated positions using mutual information and graph theory for G protein-coupled receptors

PLoS ONE

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2009, Pages

  Fatakia, Sarosh N ^a   Costanzi, Stefano ^a   Chow, Carson C ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; RHODOPSIN; LIGAND;

ALGORITHM; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; AMINO TERMINAL SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; LIGAND BINDING; PROBABILITY; PROTEIN LOCALIZATION; RECEPTOR BINDING; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PROTEIN TERTIARY STRUCTURE; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY;

ALGORITHMS; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; BINDING SITES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; CONSERVED SEQUENCE; LIGANDS; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; RECEPTORS, G-PROTEIN-COUPLED; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY, PROTEIN;

EID: 61849156818     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004681     Document Type: Article

References (126)

1. Takeda S, Kadowaki S, Haga T, Takaesu H, Mitaku S (2002) Identification of G protein-coupled receptor genes from the human genone sequence. FEBS Lett 520: 97-101.
2. Pierce KL, Premont RT, Lefkowitz RJ (2002) Seven-transmembrane receptors. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 3: 639-650.
3. Fredriksson R, Lagerstrom MC, Lundin LG, Schioth HB (2003) The G-protein-coupled receptors in the human genome form five main families. Phylogenetic analysis, paralogon groups, and fingerprints. Molecular Pharmacology 63: 1256-1272.
4. Ballesteros JA, Shi L, Javitch J (2001) Structural mimicry in G protein-coupled receptors: Implications of the high-resolution structure of rhodopsin for structure-function analysis of rhodopsin-like receptors. Molecular Pharmacology 60: 1-19.
5. Palczewski K, Kumasaka T, Hori T, Behnke CA, Motoshima H, et al. (2000) Crystal structure of rhodopsin: A G protein-coupled receptor. Science 289: 739-745.
6. Cherezov V, Rosenbaum DM, Hanson MA, Rasmussen SGF, Thian FS, et al. (2007) High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human beta(2)-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor. Science 318: 1258-1265.
7. Rosenbaum DM, Cherezov V, Hanson MA, Rasmussen SGF, Thian FS, et al. (2007) GPCR engineering yields high-resolution structural insights into beta(2)-adrenergic receptor function. Science 318: 1266-1273.
8. Rasmussen SGF, Choi HJ, Rosenbaum DM, Kobilka TS, Thian FS, et al. (2007) Crystal structure of the human beta(2) adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 450: 383-388.
9. Warne T, Serrano-Vega MJ, Baker JG, Moukhametzianov R, Edwards PC, et al. (2008) Structure of a beta1-adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 454: 486-491.
10. Hanson MA, Cherezov V, Griffith MT, Roth CB, Jaakola VP, et al. (2008) A specific cholesterol binding site is established by the 2.8 A structure of the human beta2-adrenergic receptor. Structure 16: 897-905.
11. Costanzi S (2008) On the applicability of GPCR homology models to computer-aided drug discovery: a comparison between in silico and crystal structures of the beta2-adrenergic receptor. J Med Chem 51: 2907-2914.
12. Harris CJ, Stevens AP (2006) Chemogenomics: structuring the drug discovery process to gene families. Drug Discovery Today 11: 880-888.
13. Klabunde T, Hessler G (2002) Drug design strategies for targeting G-protein-coupled receptors. Chembiochem 3: 928-944.
14. Klabunde T, Jager R (2006) Chemogenomics approaches to G-protein coupled receptor lead finding. Ernst Schering Research Foundation Workshop. pp 31-46.
15. Surgand JS, Rodrigo J, Kellenberger E, Rognan D (2006) A chemogenomic analysis of the transmembrane binding cavity of human G-protein-coupled receptors. Proteins 62: 509-538.
16. Jaakola VP, Griffith MT, Hanson MA, Cherezov V, Chien EY, et al. (2008) The 2.6 angstrom crystal structure of a human A2A adenosine receptor bound to an antagonist. Science 322: 1211-1217.
17. Ohno S (1970) Evolution by gene duplication. Springer-Verlag.
18. Oliveira L, Paiva ACM, Vriend G (2002) Correlated mutation analyses on very large sequence families. ChemBioChem 3: 1010-1017.
19. Ye K, Lameijer EW, Beukers MW, IJzerman AP (2006) A two-entropies analysis to identify functional positions in the transmembrane region of class A G protein-coupled receptors. Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics 63: 1018-1030.
20. Costanzi S, Mamedova L, Gao ZG, Jacobson KA (2004) Architecture of P2Y nucleotide receptors: Structural comparison based on sequence analysis, mutagenesis, and homology modeling. J Med Chem 47: 5393-5404.
21. Costanzi S, Joshi BV, Maddileti S, Mamedova L, Gonzalez-Moa MJ, et al. (2005) Human P2Y(6) receptor: molecular modeling leads to rational design of a novel agonist based on a unique conformational preference. J Med Chem 48: 8108-8111.
22. Kim J, Jiang Q, Glashofer M, Yehle S, Wess J, et al. (1996) Glutamate residues in the second extracellular loop of the human A2a adenosine receptor are required for ligand recognition. Molecular Pharmacology 49: 683-691.
23. Kleinau G, Claus M, Jaeschke H, Mueller S, Neumann S, et al. (2007) Contacts between extracellular loop two and transmembrane helix six determine basal activity of the thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor. J Biol Chem 282: 518-525.
24. Kleinau G, Krause G (2007) Implications for understanding molecular function and dysfunction of glycoprotein hormone receptors by a new sequence-structure-function analysis. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 115: S75-S76.
25. Moro S, Hoffmann C, Jacobson KA (1999) Role of the extracellular loops of G protein-coupled receptors in ligand recognition: a molecular modelling study of the human P2Y1 receptor. Biochemistry 38: 3498-3507.
26. Olah ME, Jacobson KA, Stiles GL (1994) Role of the second extracellular loop of adenosine receptors in agonist and antagonist binding. Analysis of chimeric A1/A3 adenosine receptors. J Biol Chem 269: 24692-24698.
27. Scarselli M, Li B, Kim SK, Wess J (2007) Multiple residues in the second extracellular loop are critical for M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor activation. J Biol Chem 282: 7385-7396.
28. Tikhonova IG, Sum CS, Neumann S, Thomas CJ, Raaka BM, et al. (2007) Bidirectional, iterative approach to the structural delineation of the functional "Chemoprint" in GPR40 for agonist recognition. J Med Chem 50: 2981-2989.
29. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems Technical Journal 27: 379-423.
30. Cover TM, Thomas JA (2006) Elements of Information Theory. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
31. Atchley WR, Terhalle W, Dress AW (1999) Positional dependence, cliques, and predictive motifs in the bHLH protein domain. Journal of Molecular Evolution 48: 501-516.
32. Atchley WR, Wollenberg KR, Fitch WM, Terhalle W, Dress AW (2000) Correlations among amino acid sites in bHLH protein domains: an information theoretic analysis. Mol Biol Evol 17: 164-178.
33. Buck MJ, Atchley WR (2005) Networks of coevolving sites in structural and functional domains of serpin proteins. Mol Biol Evol 22: 1627-1634.
34. Chiu DKY, Kolodziejczak T (1991) Inferring consensus structure from nucleic acid sequences. Computer Applicatons in the Biosciences 7: 347-352.
35. Clarke ND (1995) Covariation of residues in the homeodomain sequence family. Protein Science 4: 2269-2278.
36. Donald JE, Shakhnovich EI (2005) Predicting specificity-determining residues in two large eukaryotic transcription factor families. Nucleic Acids Research 33: 4455-4465.
37. Dunn SD, Wahl LM, Gloor GB (2008) Mutual information without the influence of phylogeny or entropy dramatically improves residue contact prediction. Bioinformatics 24: 333-340.
38. Gloor GB, Martin LC, Wahl LM, Dunn SD (2005) Mutual information in protein multiple sequence alignments reveals two classes of coevolving positions. Biochemistry 44: 7156-7165.
39. Govindarajan S, Ness JE, Kim S, Mundorff EC, Minshull J, et al. (2003) Systematic variation of amino acid substitutions for stringent assessment of pairwise covariation. Journal of Molecular Biology 328: 1061-1069.
40. Gutell RR, Power A, Hertz GZ, Putz EJ, Stormo GD (1992) Identifying constraints on the higher-order structure of RNA: continued development and application of comparative sequence analysis methods. Nucleic Acids Research 20: 5785-5795.
41. Halperin I, Wolfson H, Nussinov R (2006) Correlated mutations: Advances and Limitations. A study on fusion proteins and on the Cohesin-Dockerin families. Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics 63: 832-845.
42. Hannenhalli SS, Russle RB (2000) Analysis and prediction of functional subtypes from protein sequence alignments. Journal of Molecular Biology 303: 61-76.
43. Herzel H, Gross I (1995) Measuring correlations in symbol sequences. Physica A 216: 518-530.
44. Hoffman NG, Schiffer CA, Swanstrom R (2003) Covariation of amino acid positions in HIV-1 protease. Virology 314: 536-548.
45. Kalinina OV, Mironov AA, Gelfand MS, Rakhmaninova AB (2004) Automated selection of positions determining functional specificity of proteins by comparative analysis of orthologous groups in protein families. Protein Science 13: 443-456.
46. Kass I, Horovitz A (2002) Mapping pathways of allosteric communication in GroEL by analysis of correlated mutations. Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics 48: 611-617.
47. Korber BTM, Farber RM, Wolpert DH, Lapedes AS (1993) Covariation of mutations in the V3 loop of human immunodeficency virus type 1 envelope protein: An information theoretic analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90: 7176-7180.
48. Lewyn L, Shakhnovich EI, Mirny LA (2003) Amino acids determining enzyme-substrate specificity in prokaryotic and eukaryotic protein kinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 4463-4468.
49. Liu Y, Eyal E, Bahar I (2008) Analysis of correlated mutations in HIV-1 protease using spectral clustering. Bioinformatics 24: 1243-1250.
50. Martin LC, Gloor GB, Dunn SD, Wahl LM (2005) Using information theory to search for co-evolving residues in proteins. Bioinformatics 21: 4116-4124.
51. Mirny LA, Gelfand MS (2002) Using orthologous and paralogous proteins to Identify specificity-determining residues in bacterial transcription factors. Journal of Molecular Biology 321: 7-20.
52. Nagl SB, Freeman J, Smith TF (1999) Evolutionary constraint networks in ligand-binding domains: an information-theoretic approach. Pac Symp Biocomput. pp 90-101.
53. Nagl SB (2008) Can correlated mutations in protein domain families be used for protein design? Briefings in Bioinformatics 2: 279-288.
54. Schneider TD (1996) Reading of DNA sequence logos: prediction of major groove binding by information theory. Methods in Enzymology 274: 445-455.
55. Sjolander K (1998) Phylogenetic inference in protein superfamilies: analysis of SH2 domains. Proceedings of the (sixth) international conference on intelligent systems for molecular biology 6: 165-174.
56. Steuer R, Kurths J, Daub CO, Weise J, Selbig J (2002) The mutual information: Detecting and evaluating dependencies between variables. Bioinformatics 18: S231-S240.
57. Williamson RM (1995) Information theory analysis of the relationship between primary sequence structure and ligand recognition among a class of facilitated transporters. Journal of Theoretical Biology 174: 179-188.
58. Ballesteros JA, Weinstein H (1995) Integrated Methods for the Construction of Three-Dimensional Models and Computational Probing of Structure-Function Relations in G-Protein Coupled Receptors. Methods in Neuroscience 25: 366-428.
59. Roulston MS (1999) Estimating the errors on measured entropy and mutual information. Physica D 125: 285-294.
60. Swaminath G, Xiang Y, Lee TW, Steenhuis J, Parnot C, et al. (2004) Sequential binding of agonists to the beta(2) adrenoceptor - Kinetic evidence for intermediate conformational states. J Biol Chem 279: 686-691.
61. Sato T, Kobayashi H, Nagao T, Kurose H (1999) Ser(203) as well as Ser(204) and Ser(207) in fifth transmembrane domain of the human beta(2)-adrenoceptor contributes to agonist binding and receptor activation. Br J Pharmacol 128: 272-274.
62. Strader CD, Sigal IS, Dixon RAF (1989) Structural Basis of Beta-Adrenergic-Receptor Function. FASEB J 3: 1825-1832.
63. Costanzi S, Ivanov AA, Tikhonova IG, Jacobson KA (2007) Structure and function of G protein-coupled receptors studied using sequence analysis, molecular modeling, and receptor engineering: Adenosine receptors. In: Caldwell GW, Rahman AU, Player MR, Chouday MI, eds (2007) Frontiers in Drug Design and Discovery Bentham. pp 63-79.
64. Lopez-Rodriguez ML, Murcia M, Benhamu B, Viso A, Campillo M, et al. (2001) 3-D-QSAR/CoMFA and recognition models of benzimidazole derivatives at the 5-HT4 receptor. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 11: 2807-2811.
65. Sum CS, Tikhonova IG, Neumann S, Engel S, Raaka BM, et al. (2007) Identification of residues important for agonist recognition and activation in GPR40. J Biol Chem 282: 29248-29255.
66. Ivanov AA, Costanzi S, Jacobson KA (2006) Defining the nucleotide binding sites of P2Y receptors using rhodopsin-based homology modeling. J Comput Aided Mol Des 20: 417-426.
67. Heitman LH, Oosterom J, Bonger KM, Timmers CM, Wiegerinck PH, et al. (2008) [3H]Org 43553, the first low-molecular-weight agonostic and allosteric radioligand for the human luteinizing hormone receptor. Molecular Pharmacology 73: 518-524.
68. Jaschke H, Neumann S, Moore S, Thomas CJ, Colson AO, et al. (2006) A low molecular weight agonist signals by binding to the transmembrane domain of thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor (TSHR) and luteinizing hormone/ chorionic gonadotropin receptor (LHCGR). J Biol Chem 281: 9841-9844.
69. Moore S, Jaeschke H, Kleinau G, Neumann S, Costanzi S, et al. (2006) Evaluation of small-molecule modulators of the luteinizing hormone/ choriogonadotropin and thyroid stimulating hormone receptors: Structure-activity relationships and selective binding patterns. J Med Chem 49: 3888-3896.
70. Carroll FY, Stolle A, Beart PM, Voerste A, Brabet I, et al. (2001) BAY36-7620: A potent non-competitive mGlu1 receptor antagonist with inverse agonist activity. Molecular Pharmacology 59: 965-973.
71. Hu JX, Jiang JK, Costanzi S, Thomas C, Yang W, et al. (2006) A missense mutation in the seven-transmembrane domain of the human Ca2+ receptor converts a negative allosteric modulator into a positive allosteric modulator. J Biol Chem 281: 21558-21565.
72. Knoflach F, Mutel V, Kew JNC, Malherbe P, Vieira E, et al. (2001) Positive allosteric modulators of metabotropic glutamate 1 receptor: Characterization, mechanism of action, and binding site. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 13402-13407.
73. Litschig S, Gasparini F, Rueegg D, Stoehr N, Flor PJ, et al. (1999) CPCCOEt, a noncompetitive metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 antagonist, inhibits receptor signaling without affecting glutamate binding. Molecular Pharmacology 55: 453-461.
74. Pagano A, Ruegg D, Litschig S, Stoehr N, Stierlin C, et al. (2000) The non-competitive antagonists 2-methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine and 7-hydroxyiminocyclopropan [b]chromen-1 alpha-carboxylic acid ethyl ester interact with overlapping binding pockets in the transmembrane region of group I metabotropic glutamate receptors. J Biol Chem 275: 33750-33758.
75. Ray K, Northup J (2002) Evidence for distinct cation and calcimimetic compound (NPS 568) recognition domains in the transmembrane regions of the human Ca2+ receptor. J Biol Chem 277: 18908-18913.
76. Ray K, Tisdale J, Dodd RH, Dauban P, Ruat M, et al. (2005) Calindol, a positive allosteric modulator of the human Ca2+ receptor, activates an extracellular ligand-binding domain-deleted rhodopsin-like seven-transmembrane structure in the absence of Ca2+. J Biol Chem 280: 37013-37020.
77. Dima RI, Thirumalai D (2005) Determination of network of residues that regulate allostery in protein families using sequence analysis. Protein Science 15: 258-268.
78. Donald JE, Shakhnovich EI (2009) SDR: a database of predicted specificity-determining residues in proteins. Nucleic Acids Research 37: D191-D194.
79. Donald JE, Shakhnovich EI (2007) Specificity of Protein-DNA interactions [dissertation].
80. Goh C, Bogan AA, Joachimiak M, Walther D, Cohen FE (2000) Co-evolution of proteins with their interaction partners. Journal of Molecular Biology 299: 283-293.
81. Gouldson PR, Dean MK, Snell CR, Bywater RP, Gkoutos G, et al. (2001) Lipid-facing correlated mutations and dimerzation in G protein-coupled receptors. Protein Engineering 14: 759-767.
82. Madabushi S, Gross AK, Philippi A, Meng EC, Wensel TG, et al. (2004) Evolutionary trace of G protein-coupled receptors reveals clusters of residues that determine global and class-specific functions. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279: 8126-8132.
83. Oliveira L, Paiva PB, Paiva ACM, Vriend G (2003) Sequence analysis reveals how G protein-coupled receptors transduce the signal to the G protein. Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics 52: 553-560.
84. Thomas J, Ramakrishnan N, Bailey-Kellogg C (2008) Graphical models of residue coupling in protein families. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 2: 183-197.
85. Ye K, Vriend G, IJzerman AP (2008) Tracing evolutionary pressure. Bioinformatics 24: 908-915.
86. Altschuh D, Lesk AM, Bloomer AC, Klug A (1987) Correlation of co-ordinated amino acid stustitutions with function in viruses related to tobacco mosaic virus. Journal of Molecular Biology 193: 693-707.
87. Banerjee R, Pennington MW, Garza A, Owens IS (2008) Mapping the UDP-glucuronic acid binding site in UDP-glucuronosyltransferase-1A10 by homology-based modeling: confirmation with biochemical evidence. Biochemistry 47: 7385-7392.
88. Capra JA, Singh M (2007) Predicting functionally important residues from sequence conservation. Bioinformatics 23: 1875-1882.
89. Casari G, Sander C, Valencia A (1995) A method to predict functional residues in proteins. Nat Struct Biol 2: 171-178.
90. Chakrabarti S, Bryant SH, Panchenko AR (2007) Functional specificity lies within the properties and evolutionary changes of amino acids. Journal of Molecular Biology 373: 801-810.
91. Dimmic MW, Hubisz MJ, Bustamante CD, Nielsen R (2005) Detecting coevolving amino acid sites using Bayesian mutational mapping. Bioinformatics 21: i126-i135.
92. Dutheil J, Pupko T, Jean-Marie A, Galtier N (2005) A model-based approach for detecting coevolving positions in a molecule. Mol Biol Evol 22: 1919-1928.
93. Fleishman SJ, Yifrach O, Ben-Tal N (2004) An evolutionarily conserved network of amino acids mediates gating in voltage-dependent potassium channels. Journal of Molecular Biology 340: 307-318.
94. Galitsky B (2003) Revealing the set of mutually correlated positions for the protein families of immunoglobin fold. In Silico Biology 3: 241-264.
95. Hemmerich C, Kim S (2007) A study of residue correlation within protein sequences and its application to sequence classification. EURASIP Journal on Bioinformatics and Systems Biology 2007: 1-9.
96. Jothi R, Cherukuri PF, Tasneem A, Przytycka TM (2006) Co-evolutionary analysis of domains in interacting proteins reveals insights into domain-domain interactions mediating protein-protein interactions. Journal of Molecular Biology 362: 861-875.
97. Kundrotas PJ, Alexov EG (2006) Predicting residue contacts using pragmatic correlated mutations methods: reducing the false positives. BMC Bioinformatics 7: 503-509.
98. Lange OF, Grubmuller H (2007) Full correlation analysis of conformational protein dynamics. Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics 70: 1294-1312.
99. Lichtarge O, Bourne HR, Cohen FE (1996) An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. Journal of Molecular Biology 257: 342-358.
100. Lichtarge O, Yamamoto KR, Cohen FE (1997) Identification of functional surfaces of the zinc binding domains of intracellular receptors. Journal of Molecular Biology 274: 325-337.
101. Lockless SW, Ranganathan R (2008) Evolutionary conserved pathways of energetic connectivity in protein families. Science 286: 295-299.
102. Neher E (1994) How frequent are correlated changes in families of protein sequences? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91: 98-102.
103. Noivirt O, Eisenstein M, Horovitz A (2005) Detection and reduction of evolutionary noise in correlated mutation analysis. Protein Engineering, Design and Selection 18: 247-253.
104. Oliveira L, Paiva PB, Paiva ACM, Vriend G (2003) Identification of functionally conserved residues with the use of entropy-variability plots. Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics 52: 544-552.
105. Pazos F, Olmea O, Valencia A (1997) A graphical interface for correlated mutations and other protein structure prediction methods. Computer Applicatons in the Biosciences 13: 319-321.
106. Pazos F, Helmer-Citterich M, Ausiello G, Valencia A (1997) Correlated mutations contain information about protein-protein interaction. Journal of Molecular Biology 271: 511-523.
107. Pollock DD, Taylor WR (1997) Effectiveness of correlational analysis in identifying protein residues undergoing correlated evolution. Protein Engineering 10: 647-657.
108. Pollock DD, Taylor WR, Goldman N (1999) Coevolving protein residues: maximum likelihood identification and relationship to structure. Journal of Molecular Biology 287: 187-198.
109. Pritchard L, Bladon P, Mitchell JM, Dufton MJ (2001) Evaluation of a novel method for the identification of coevolving protein residues. Protein Engineering 14: 549-555.
110. Qi Y, Grishin NV (2004) PCOAT: positional correlation analysis using multiple methods. Bioinformatics 20: 3697-3699.
111. Ramani AK, Marcotte EM (2003) Exploiting the co-evolution of interacting proteins to discover interaction specificity. Journal of Molecular Biology 327: 273-284.
112. Raviscioni M, Gu P, Sattar M, Cooney AJ, Lichtarge O (2005) Correlated evolutionary pressure at interacting transcription factors and DNA response elements can guide the rational engineering of DNA binding specificity. Journal of Molecular Biology 350: 402-415.
113. Shindyalov IN, Kolchanov NA, Sander C (1994) Can three-dimensional contacts in protein structures be predicted by analysis of correlated mutations? Protein Engineering 7: 349-358.
114. Suel G, Lockless SW, Wall MA, Ranganathan R (2003) Evolutionary conserved networks of residues mediate allosteric communication in proteins. Nat Struct Biol 10: 59-69.
115. Taylor WR, Hatrick K (1994) Compensating changes in protein multiple sequence alignments. Protein Engineering 7: 341-348.
116. Yip KY, Patel P, Kim PM, Engelman DM, McDermott D, Gerstein M (2008) An integrated system for studying residue coevolution in proteins. Bioinformatics 24: 290-292.
117. Yeang C, Haussler D (2007) Detecting coevolution in and among protein domains. PLOS Computational Biology 3: 2122-2134.
118. Ortiz AR, Gomez-Puertas P, Leo-Macias A, Lopez-Romero P, Lopez-Vinas E, et al. (2006) Computational approaches to model ligand selectivity in drug design. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 6: 41-45.
119. Kelly JW (2005) Form and function instructions. Nature 437: 486-487.
120. Russ WP, Lowery DM, Mishra P, Yaffe MB, Ranganathan R (2005) Natural-like function in artificial WW domains. Nature 437: 579-583.
121. Socolich M, Lockless SW, Russ WP, Lee H, Gardner KH, et al. (2005) Evolutionary information for specifying a protein fold. Nature 437: 512-518.
122. Horn F, Bettler E, Oliveira L, Campagne F, Cohen FE, et al. (2003) GPCRDB information system for G protein-coupled receptors. Nucleic Acids Res 31: 294-297.
123. National Center for Biotechnology Information (2002) Reference Sequence (RefSeq) Project. In: The NCBI handbook [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US).
124. Pruitt KD, Tatusova T, Maglott DR (2007) NCBI reference sequences (RefSeq): a curated non-redundant sequence database of genomes, transcripts and proteins. Nucleic Acids Research 35: D61-D65.
125. Brun R, Rademakers F (1997) ROOT - An Object Oriented Data Analysis Framework. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A 389: 81-86.
126. Batageli V, Mrvar A (2003) Pajek - analysis and visualization of large networks. In: Junger M, Mutzel P, eds (2003) Graph drawing software. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp 77-104.