The sequence-structure relationship and protein function prediction

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 357-362

  Sadowski, M I ^a   Jones, D T ^b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

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

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS;

EID: 66549113381     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2009.03.008     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Anfinsen C.B. Principles that govern the folding of polypeptide chains. Science 181 (1973) 223-230
2. Kim S.H., Shin D.H., Choi I.G., Schulze-Gahmen U., Chen S., and Kim R. Structure-based functional inference in structural genomics. J Struct Funct Genomics 4 (2003) 129-135
3. Bork P., Sander C., and Valencia A. Convergent evolution of similar enzymatic function on different protein folds: the hexokinase, ribokinase, and galactokinase families of sugar kinases. Protein Sci 2 (1993) 31-40
4. Russell R.B. Detection of protein three-dimensional side-chain patterns: new examples of convergent evolution. J Mol Biol 279 (1998) 1211-1227
5. Copley R.R., Russell R.B., and Ponting C.P. Sialidase-like Asp-boxes: sequence-similar structures within different protein folds. Protein Sci 10 (2001) 285-292
6. Ausiello G., Peluso D., Via A., and Helmer-Citterich M. Local comparison of protein structures highlights cases of convergent evolution in analogous functional sites. BMC Bioinformatics 8 Suppl. 1 (2007) S24
7. Redfern O.C., Dessailly B., and Orengo C.A. Exploring the structure and function paradigm. Curr Opin Struct Biol 18 (2008) 394-402
8. Chothia C., and Lesk A.M. The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. EMBO J 5 (1986) 823-826
9. Murzin A.G., Brenner S.E., Hubbard T., and Chothia C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J. Mol. Biol. 247 (1995) 536-540
10. Orengo C.A., Michie A.D., Jones D.T., Swindells M.B., and Thornton J.M. CATH: a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure 5 (1997) 1093-1110
11. Rose G.D., and Trevor P.C. Protein folding: predicting predicting. Proteins: Struct, Function, Genet 19 (1994) 1-3
12. Jones D.T., Moody C.M., Uppenbink J., Viles J.H., Doyle P.M., Harris C.J., Pearl L.H., Sadler P.J., and Thornton J.M. Towards meeting the Paracelsus challenge: the design, synthesis, and characterization of paracelsin-43, an α-helical protein with over 50% sequence identity to an all-β protein. Proteins 24 (1995) 502-513
13. Rose G.D. Protein folding and the Paracelsus challenge. Nat Struct Biol 4 (1997) 512-514
14. Dalal S., Balasubramanian S., and Regan L. Protein alchemy: changing beta-sheet into alpha-helix. Nat Struct Biol 4 (1997) 548-552
15. Shao-Min Y., and Clarke N.D. A hybrid sequence approach to the paracelsus challenge. Proteins 30 (1998) 136-143
16. Alexander P.A., He Y., Chen Y., Orban J., and Bryan P.N. The design and characterization of two proteins with 88% sequence identity but different structure and function. PNAS 104 (2007) 11963-11968. Two proteins with 88% sequence identity but markedly different structures are reported.
17. He Y., Chen Y., Alexander P., Bryan P.N., and Orban J. NMR structures of two designed proteins with high sequence identity but different fold and function. PNAS 105 (2008) 14412-14417
18. Cordes M.H.J., Burton R.E., Walsh N.P., McKnight C.J., and Sauer R.T. An evolutionary bridge to a new protein fold. Nat Struct Biol 7 (2000) 1129-1132
19. Van Dorn L.O., Newlove T., Chang S., Ingram W.M., and Cordes M.H. Relationship between sequence determinants of stability for two natural homologous proteins with different folds. Biochemistry 45 (2006) 10542-10553. Mutagenesis experiments are used to determine a possible intermediate sequence between two Cro proteins.
20. Meier S., Jensen P.R., David C.N., Chapman J., Holstein T.W., Grzesieck S., and Ozbeck S. Continuous molecular evolution of protein-domain structures by single amino acid changes. Curr Biol 17 (2007) 173-178. A G to P point mutation is shown to cause a small, cysteine-rich protein of cnidarian nematocyst collagen to adopt two ground-state structures with different disulfide-bonding patterns and a grossly changed overall conformation.
21. Bashton M., Nobeli I., and Thornton J.M. Cognate ligand domain mapping for enzymes. J Mol Biol 364 (2006) 836-852
22. Bashton M., Nobeli I., and Thornton J.M. PROCOGNATE: A cognate ligand domain mapping for enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res 36 (2008) D618-D622
23. Krissinel E., and Henrick K. Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline state. J Mol Biol 372 (2007) 774-797
24. Ashburner M., Ball C.A., Blake J.A., Botstein D., Butler H., Cherry J.M., Davis A.P., Dolinski K., Dwight S.S., Eppig J.T., et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The gene ontology consortium. Nat Genet 25 (2000) 25-29
25. Hill D.P., Smith B., McAndrews-Hill M.S., and Blake J.A. Gene ontology annotations: what they mean and where they come from. BMC Bioinformatics 9 Suppl. 5 (2008) S2
26. Soro S., and Tramontano A. The prediction of protein function at CASP 6. Proteins 61 S7 (2005) 201-213
27. Pellegrini-Calace M., Soro S., and Tramontano A. Revisiting the prediction of protein function at CASP 6. FEBS J 273 (2006) 2977-2983. A follow-up of the CASP function prediction exercise once experimental validations were available for ten of the targets. Some evidence that the consensus of methods, as used in the original assessment, was usually correct is provided but the assessment remains difficult even once experimental results are available.
28. Lerman G., and Shakhnovich B.E. Defining functional distance using manifold embeddings of gene ontology annotations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104 (2007) 11334-11339
29. Reeves G.A., Eilbeck K., Magrane M., O'Donovan C., Montecchi-Palazzi L., Harris M.A., Orchard S., Jimenez R.C., Prlic A., Hubbard T.J., et al. The protein feature ontology: a tool for the unification of protein feature annotations. Bioinformatics 24 (2008) 2767-2772
30. Jenkinson A.M., Albrecht M., Birney E., Blankenburg H., Down T., Finn R.D., Hermjakob H., Hubbard T.J., Jimenez R.C., Jones P., et al. Integrating biological data-the distributed annotation system. BMC Bioinformatics 9 Suppl. 8 (2008) S3
31. Reeves G.A., Talavera D., and Thornton J.M. Genome and proteome annotation: organization, interpretation and integration. J R Soc Interface 6 (2009) 129-147
32. Campbell S.J., Gold N.D., Jackson R.M., and Westhead D.R. Ligand binding: functional site location, similarity and docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 13 (2003) 389-395
33. Torrance J.W., Bartlett G.J., Porter C.T., and Thornton J.M. Using a library of structural templates to recognise catalytic sites and explore their evolution in homologous families. J Mol Biol 347 (2005) 565-581
34. Sodhi J.S., Bryson K., McGuffin L.J., Ward J.J., Wernisch L., and Jones D.T. Predicting metal-binding site residues in low-resolution structural models. J Mol Biol 342 (2004) 307-320
35. Xie L., and Bourne P.E. Detecting evolutionary relationships across existing fold space, using sequence order-independent 'profile-profile alignments'. PNAS 105 (2008) 5441-5446
36. Pazos F., and Sternberg M.J.E. Automated prediction of protein function and detection of functional sites from structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101 (2004) 14754-14759
37. Cheng G., Qian B., Samudrala R., and Baker D. Improvement in protein functional site prediction by distinguishing structural and functional constraints on protein family evolution using computational design. Nucleic Acids Res 33 (2005) 5861-5867
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. Gold N.D., and Jackson R.M. A searchable database for comparing protein-ligand binding sites for the analysis of structure-function relationships. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 736-742
40. Davies J.R., Jackson R.M., Mardia K.V., and Taylor C.C. The Poisson Index: a new probabilistic model for protein-ligand binding site similarity. Bioinformatics 23 (2008) 3001-3008
41. 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
42. Watson J.D., Sanderson S., Ezersky A., Savchenko A., Edwards A., Orengo C., Joachimiak A., Laskowski R.A., and Thornton J.M. Towards fully automated structure-based function prediction in structural genomics: a case study. J Mol Biol 367 (2007) 1511-1522
43. Adams M.A., Suits M.D.L., Zheng J., and Jia Z. Piecing together the structure-function puzzle: experiences in the structure-based functional annotation of hypothetical proteins. Proteomics 7 (2007) 2920-2932. Case studies of seven proteins from E. coli for which successful functional annotations were made using a combination of bioinformatics and experimental techniques.
44. Stockwell G.R., and Thornton J.M. Conformational diversity of ligands bound to proteins. JMB 356 (2006) 928-944
45. Friedberg I., and Godzik A. Functional differentiation of proteins: implications for structural genomics. Structure 15 (2007) 405-415
46. Dunker A.K., Garner E., Guilliot S., Romero P., Albrecht K., Hart J., and Obradovic Z. Protein disorder and the evolution of molecular recognition: theory, predictions, and observations. Pacific Symp. Biocomput. 3 (1998) 473-484
47. Dunker A.K., Silman I., Uversky V.N., and Sussman J.L. Function and structure of inherently disordered proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 18 (2008) 756-764
48. Lobley A., Swindells M.B., Orengo C.A., and Jones D.T. Inferring function using patterns of native disorder in proteins. PLoS Comput Biol. 3 (2007) e162. A fully automated method is presented for predicting the function of proteins, taking into account patterns of predicted disorder within the target protein. Interestingly, disorder features are seen to be one of the most powerful features in determining the correct biological process for a given protein.