Exploiting structural classifications for function prediction: towards a domain grammar for protein function

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 349-356

  Dessailly, Benoît H ^a   Redfern, Oliver C ^a   Cuff, Alison ^a   Orengo, Christine A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; CLASSIFICATION; FUNCTIONAL PROTEOMICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL PROTEOMICS; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS;

EID: 66549096455     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2009.03.009     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Lee D., Redfern O., and Orengo C. Predicting protein function from sequence and structure. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8 (2007) 995-1005
2. Greene L.H., Lewis T.E., Addou S., Cuff A., Dallman T., Dibley M., Redfern O., Pearl F., Nambudiry R., Reid A., et al. The CATH domain structure database: new protocols and classification levels give a more comprehensive resource for exploring evolution. Nucleic Acids Res 35 (2007) D291-D297
3. Andreeva A., Howorth D., Chandonia J.M., Brenner S.E., Hubbard T.J., Chothia C., and Murzin A.G. Data growth and its impact on the SCOP database: new developments. Nucleic Acids Res 36 (2008) D419-D425
4. Bashton M., and Chothia C. The generation of new protein functions by the combination of domains. Structure 15 (2007) 85-99. This paper provides a very complete and well-structured analysis of mechanisms by which acquisition of new domains and recombination of domains allow proteins to adopt novel functions.
5. Martin A.C., Orengo C.A., Hutchinson E.G., Jones S., Karmirantzou M., Laskowski R.A., Mitchell J.B., Taroni C., and Thornton J.M. Protein folds and functions. Structure 6 (1998) 875-884
6. Kolodny R., Petrey D., and Honig B. Protein structure comparison: implications for the nature of 'fold space', and structure and function prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16 (2006) 393-398
7. Sippl M.J., Suhrer S.J., Gruber M., and Wiederstein M. A discrete view on fold space. Bioinformatics 24 (2008) 870-871
8. Sippl M.J. On distance and similarity in fold space. Bioinformatics 24 (2008) 872-873
9. Taylor W.R. Evolutionary transitions in protein fold space. Curr Opin Struct Biol 17 (2007) 354-361
10. Alva V., Koretke K.K., Coles M., and Lupas A.N. Cradle-loop barrels and the concept of metafolds in protein classification by natural descent. Curr Opin Struct Biol 18 (2008) 358-365
11. Orengo C.A., Jones D.T., and Thornton J.M. Protein superfamilies and domain superfolds. Nature 372 (1994) 631-634
12. Reeves G.A., Dallman T.J., Redfern O.C., Akpor A., and Orengo C.A. Structural diversity of domain superfamilies in the CATH database. J Mol Biol 360 (2006) 725-741
13. Grishin N.V. Fold change in evolution of protein structures. J Struct Biol 134 (2001) 167-185
14. Andreeva A., and Murzin A.G. Evolution of protein fold in the presence of functional constraints. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16 (2006) 399-408
15. Murzin A.G. Biochemistry. Metamorphic proteins. Science 320 (2008) 1725-1726. Interesting and well-documented short article exploring the notion of metamorphic proteins, that is, proteins whose structure changes during their lifetime.
16. Manikandan K., Pal D., Ramakumar S., Brener N.E., Iyengar S.S., and Seetharaman G. Functionally important segments in proteins dissected using gene ontology and geometric clustering of peptide fragments. Genome Biol 9 (2008) R52
17. Soding J., and Lupas A.N. More than the sum of their parts: on the evolution of proteins from peptides. Bioessays 25 (2003) 837-846
18. Xie L., and Bourne P.E. Detecting evolutionary relationships across existing fold space, using sequence order-independent profile-profile alignments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 (2008) 5441-5446. This paper presents a novel method for predicting similarity in ligand-binding sites. The authors compare their method with other published approaches and demonstrate its superiority for predicting the binding of adenine-containing compounds. Their results also suggest that these binding sites have arisen from divergent rather than convergent evolution, as similarities are found across different SCOP superfamilies.
19. Reid A.J., Yeats C., and Orengo C.A. Methods of remote homology detection can be combined to increase coverage by 10% in the midnight zone. Bioinformatics 23 (2007) 2353-2360
20. Harrison A., Pearl F., Mott R., Thornton J., and Orengo C. Quantifying the similarities within fold space. J Mol Biol 323 (2002) 909-926
21. Moult J., and Melamud E. From fold to function. Curr Opin Struct Biol 10 (2000) 384-389
22. Russell R.B., Sasieni P.D., and Sternberg M.J. Supersites within superfolds. Binding site similarity in the absence of homology. J Mol Biol 282 (1998) 903-918
23. Zhang J. Evolution by gene duplication: an update. Trends Ecol Evol 18 (2003) 292-298
24. Conant G.C., and Wolfe K.H. Turning a hobby into a job: how duplicated genes find new functions. Nat Rev Genet 9 (2008) 938-950. An exhaustive review that provides an update on the mechanisms by which the function of proteins changes after duplication.
25. Redfern O.C., Dessailly B., and Orengo C.A. Exploring the structure and function paradigm. Curr Opin Struct Biol 18 (2008) 394-402
26. Dessailly B.H., and Orengo C.A. Function diversity within folds and superfamilies. In: Rigden D.J. (Ed). From Protein Structure to Function with Bioinformatics (2009), Springer
27. Todd A.E., Orengo C.A., and Thornton J.M. Evolution of function in protein superfamilies, from a structural perspective. J Mol Biol 307 (2001) 1113-1143
28. Shakhnovich B.E., and Koonin E.V. Origins and impact of constraints in evolution of gene families. Genome Res 16 (2006) 1529-1536
29. Yeats C., Lees J., Reid A., Kellam P., Martin N., Liu X., and Orengo C. Gene3D: comprehensive structural and functional annotation of genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 36 (2008) D414-D418
30. Wilson D., Madera M., Vogel C., Chothia C., and Gough J. The SUPERFAMILY database in 2007: families and functions. Nucleic Acids Res 35 (2007) D308-D313
31. Shindyalov I.N., and Bourne P.E. Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. Protein Eng 11 (1998) 739-747
32. Holm L., and Sander C. Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. J Mol Biol 233 (1993) 123-138
33. Redfern O.C., Harrison A., Dallman T., Pearl F.M., and Orengo C.A. CATHEDRAL: a fast and effective algorithm to predict folds and domain boundaries from multidomain protein structures. PLoS Comput Biol 3 (2007) e232
34. Ye Y., and Godzik A. Flexible structure alignment by chaining aligned fragment pairs allowing twists. Bioinformatics 19 Suppl. 2 (2003) ii246-ii255
35. Goldstein R.A. The structure of protein evolution and the evolution of protein structure. Curr Opin Struct Biol 18 (2008) 170-177. In this review, the author systematically explores the different hypotheses that attempt to explain why some superfamilies and folds have expanded and diverged much more than others during the course of evolution.
36. lali-Hassani A., Pan P.W., Dombrovski L., Najmanovich R., Tempel W., Dong A., Loppnau P., Martin F., Thornton J., Edwards A.M., et al. Structural and chemical profiling of the human cytosolic sulfotransferases. PLoS Biol 5 (2007) e97
37. Chiang R.A., Sali A., and Babbitt P.C. Evolutionarily conserved substrate substructures for automated annotation of enzyme superfamilies. PLoS Comput Biol 4 (2008) e1000142. This paper presents an automated method for annotating members of different superfamilies with likely substrates. The authors' analysis looks at the substructures of the substrates that are conserved among different relatives. It highlights the fact that different superfamilies often need to be treated individually to predict aspects of their function using structural data.
38. Favia A.D., Nobeli I., Glaser F., and Thornton J.M. Molecular docking for substrate identification: the short-chain dehydrogenases/reductases. J Mol Biol 375 (2008) 855-874
39. Shah P.K., Tripathi L.P., Jensen L.J., Gahnim M., Mason C., Furlong E.E., Rodrigues V., White K.P., Bork P., and Sowdhamini R. Enhanced function annotations for Drosophila serine proteases: a case study for systematic annotation of multi-member gene families. Gene 407 (2008) 199-215
40. Ojha S., Meng E.C., and Babbitt P.C. Evolution of function in the 'two dinucleotide binding domains' flavoproteins. PLoS Comput Biol 3 (2007) e121
41. Bornberg-Bauer E., Beaussart F., Kummerfeld S.K., Teichmann S.A., and Weiner III J. The evolution of domain arrangements in proteins and interaction networks. Cell Mol Life Sci 62 (2005) 435-445
42. Aravind L., Anantharaman V., and Koonin E.V. Monophyly of class I aminoacyl tRNA synthetase, USPA, ETFP, photolyase, and PP-ATPase nucleotide-binding domains: implications for protein evolution in the RNA. Proteins 48 (2002) 1-14
43. Glasner M.E., Gerlt J.A., and Babbitt P.C. Evolution of enzyme superfamilies. Curr Opin Chem Biol 10 (2006) 492-497
44. Pegg S.C., Brown S.D., Ojha S., Seffernick J., Meng E.C., Morris J.H., Chang P.J., Huang C.C., Ferrin T.E., and Babbitt P.C. Leveraging enzyme structure-function relationships for functional inference and experimental design: the structure-function linkage database. Biochemistry 45 (2006) 2545-2555
45. Hermann J.C., Marti-Arbona R., Fedorov A.A., Fedorov E., Almo S.C., Shoichet B.K., and Raushel F.M. Structure-based activity prediction for an enzyme of unknown function. Nature 448 (2007) 775-779. This paper describes the successful prediction of the activity of an enzyme that belongs to the very large and diverse amidohydrolase superfamily, by docking it against a list of high-energy intermediate forms of candidate metabolites. The list of these candidate metabolites is derived from a list of compounds appearing in reactions catalysed by other members of the superfamily.
46. Song L., Kalyanaraman C., Fedorov A.A., Fedorov E.V., Glasner M.E., Brown S., Imker H.J., Babbitt P.C., Almo S.C., Jacobson M.P., and Gerlt J.A. Prediction and assignment of function for a divergent N-succinyl amino acid racemase. Nat Chem Biol 3 (2007) 486-491
47. Nguyen T.T., Brown S., Fedorov A.A., Fedorov E.V., Babbitt P.C., Almo S.C., and Raushel F.M. At the periphery of the amidohydrolase superfamily: Bh0493 from Bacillus halodurans catalyzes the isomerization of D-galacturonate to D-tagaturonate. Biochemistry 47 (2008) 1194-1206
48. Gerlt J.A. A protein structure (or function?) initiative. Structure 15 (2007) 1353-1356
49. Gerlt J.A., and Babbitt P.C. Divergent evolution of enzymatic function: mechanistically diverse superfamilies and functionally distinct suprafamilies. Annu Rev Biochem 70 (2001) 209-246
50. Rison S.C., and Thornton J.M. Pathway evolution, structurally speaking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 12 (2002) 374-382
51. Brown D.P., Krishnamurthy N., and Sjolander K. Automated protein subfamily identification and classification. PLoS Comput Biol 3 (2007) e160
52. Reva B., Antipin Y., and Sander C. Determinants of protein function revealed by combinatorial entropy optimization. Genome Biol 8 (2007) R232
53. Capra J.A., and Singh M. Characterization and prediction of residues determining protein functional specificity. Bioinformatics 24 (2008) 1473-1480
54. Ye K., Anton F.K., Heringa J., Ijzerman A.P., and Marchiori E. Multi-RELIEF: a method to recognize specificity determining residues from multiple sequence alignments using a Machine-Learning approach for feature weighting. Bioinformatics 24 (2008) 18-25
55. Shakhnovich B.E., Dokholyan N.V., DeLisi C., and Shakhnovich E.I. Functional fingerprints of folds: evidence for correlated structure-function evolution. J Mol Biol 326 (2003) 1-9
56. Bandyopadhyay D., Huan J., Liu J., Prins J., Snoeyink J., Wang W., and Tropsha A. Structure-based function inference using protein family-specific fingerprints. Protein Sci 15 (2006) 1537-1543
57. Polacco B.J., and Babbitt P.C. Automated discovery of 3D motifs for protein function annotation. Bioinformatics 22 (2006) 723-730
58. Friedberg I. Automated protein function prediction-the genomic challenge. Brief Bioinform 7 (2006) 225-242
59. Laskowski R.A., Watson J.D., and Thornton J.M. ProFunc: a server for predicting protein function from 3D structure. Nucleic Acids Res 33 (2005) W89-W93
60. Pal D., and Eisenberg D. Inference of protein function from protein structure. Structure 13 (2005) 121-130
61. Friedberg I., Harder T., and Godzik A. JAFA: a protein function annotation meta-server. Nucleic Acids Res 34 (2006) W379-W381
62. Moore A.D., Bjorklund A.K., Ekman D., Bornberg-Bauer E., and Elofsson A. Arrangements in the modular evolution of proteins. Trends Biochem Sci 33 (2008) 444-451. An interesting review of evolutionary insights into the diverse modes and origins of arrangements and combinations of domains in proteins.
63. Finn R.D., Tate J., Mistry J., Coggill P.C., Sammut S.J., Hotz H.R., Ceric G., Forslund K., Eddy S.R., Sonnhammer E.L., and Bateman A. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res 36 (2008) D281-D288
64. Bru C., Courcelle E., Carrere S., Beausse Y., Dalmar S., and Kahn D. The ProDom database of protein domain families: more emphasis on 3D. Nucleic Acids Res 33 (2005) D212-D215
65. Basu M.K., Carmel L., Rogozin I.B., and Koonin E.V. Evolution of protein domain promiscuity in eukaryotes. Genome Res 18 (2008) 449-461
66. Weiner III J., Moore A.D., and Bornberg-Bauer E. Just how versatile are domains?. BMC Evol Biol 8 (2008) 285
67. Vogel C., Bashton M., Kerrison N.D., Chothia C., and Teichmann S.A. Structure, function and evolution of multidomain proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 14 (2004) 208-216
68. Bashton M., Nobeli I., and Thornton J.M. Cognate ligand domain mapping for enzymes. J Mol Biol 364 (2006) 836-852