From Principal Component to Direct Coupling Analysis of Coevolution in Proteins: Low-Eigenvalue Modes are Needed for Structure Prediction

PLoS Computational Biology

Volumn 9, Issue 8, 2013, Pages

  Cocco, Simona ^a   Monasson, Remi ^b   Weigt, Martin ^a,c  

^a SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c Human Genetics Foundation   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; FORECASTING; MAXIMUM ENTROPY METHODS; MAXIMUM PRINCIPLE; POTTS MODEL; PROTEINS; STATISTICAL PHYSICS;

CO-EVOLUTION; CO-VARIATIONS; COUPLING ANALYSIS; DIRECT COUPLING; EIGEN-VALUE; MULTIPLE SEQUENCE ALIGNMENTS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS; PRINCIPAL-COMPONENT ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL INFORMATION; STRUCTURE PREDICTION;

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

AMINO ACID; DNA;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; COEVOLUTION; DIRECT COUPLING ANALYSIS; DNA SEQUENCE; ENTROPY; PREDICTION; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN FAMILY; PROTEIN FOLDING; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

EID: 84883427400     PISSN: 1553734X     EISSN: 15537358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003176     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Pagani I, Liolios K, Jansson J, Chen I, Smirnova T, et al. (2012) The Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) v.4: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res 40: D571.
2. The Uniprot Consortium (2012) Reorganizing the protein space at the Universal Protein Resource (UniProt). Nucleic Acids Res 40: D71.
3. Punta M, Coggill PC, Eberhardt RY, Mistry J, Tate JG, et al. (2012) The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res 40: D290.
4. Berman HM, Kleywegt GJ, Nakamura H, Markley JL, (2012) The protein data bank at 40: Reflecting on the past to prepare for the future. Structure 20: 391-396.
5. Göbel U, Sander C, Schneider R, Valencia A, (1994) Correlated mutations and residue contacts in proteins. Proteins: Struct, Funct, Genet 18: 309.
6. Lockless SW, Ranganathan R, (1999) Evolutionarily conserved pathways of energetic connectivity in protein families. Science 286: 295-299.
7. de Juan D, Pazos F, Valencia A, (2013) Emerging methods in protein co-evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics 14: 249-261.
8. Casari G, Sander C, Valencia A, (1995) A method to predict functional residues in proteins. Nature Structural Biology 2: 171-178.
9. Ortiz A, Hu W, Kolinski A, Skolnick J, (1997) Method for low resolution prediction of small protein tertiary structure. Pac Symp Biocomput pp. 316-327.
10. Pazos F, Helmer-Citterich E, Ausiello G, Valencia A, (1997) Correlated mutations contain information about protein- protein interaction. J Mol Biol 271: 511-523.
11. Ortiz A, Kolinski A, Rotkiewicz P, Ilkowski B, Skolnick J, (1999) Ab initio folding of proteins using restraints derived from evolutionary information. PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Genetics 3: 177-185.
12. Lapedes AS, Giraud BG, Jarzynski C, (2002) Using sequence alignments to predict protein structure and stability with high accuracy. LANL preprint Available: http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?01038177.pdf.
13. Fodor AA, Aldrich RW, (2004) Influence of conservation on calculations of amino acid covariance in multiple sequence alignments. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 56: 211-221.
14. Socolich M, Lockless SW, Lee HL, Gardner K, Ranganathan R, (2005) Evolutionary Information for Specifying a Protein Fold. Nature 437: 512-518.
15. Russ W, Lowery D, Mishra P, Yaffe M, Ranganathan R, (2005) Natural-like Function in Artificial WW Domains. Nature 437: 579-583.
16. Dunn SD, Wahl LM, Gloor GB, (2008) Mutual information without the influence of phylogeny or entropy dramatically improves residue contact prediction. Bioinformatics 24: 333.
17. Weigt M, White RA, Szurmant H, Hoch JA, Hwa T, (2009) Identification of direct residue contacts in protein-protein interaction by message passing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 67.
18. Burger L, van Nimwegen E, (2010) Disentangling Direct from Indirect Co-Evolution of Residues in Protein Alignments. PLoS Comput Biol 6: E1000633.
19. Morcos F, Pagnani A, Lunt B, Bertolino A, Marks DS, et al. (2011) Direct-coupling analysis of residue coevolution captures native contacts across many protein families. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: E1293.
20. Balakrishnan S, Kamisetty H, Carbonell JG, Lee SI, Langmead CJ, (2011) Learning generative models for protein fold families. Proteins: Struct, Funct, Bioinf 79: 1061.
21. Jones DT, Buchan DWA, Cozzetto D, Pontil M, (2012) PSICOV: precise structural contact prediction using sparse inverse covariance estimation on large multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics 28: 184.
22. Yeang C, (2007) Haussler (2007) Detecting coevolution in and among protein domains. Plos Comput Biol 31 (11):: e211.
23. Jaynes ET, (1957) Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics. Physical Review Series II 106: 620630.
24. Jaynes ET, (1957) Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics II. Physical Review Series II 108: 171190.
25. Schneidman E, Berry M, Segev R, Bialek W, (2006) Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population. Nature 440: 1007-1012.
26. Cocco S, Leibler S, Monasson R, (2009) Neuronal couplings between retinal ganglion cells inferred by efficient inverse statistical physics methods. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 14058-62.
27. Lezon TR, Banavar JR, Cieplak M, Maritan A, Fedoroff NV, (2006) Using the principle of entropy maximization to infer genetic interaction networks from gene expression patterns. Proc Nat Acad Sci 103: 19033-19038.
28. Bialek W, Cavagna A, Giardina I, Mora T, Silvestri E, et al. (2012) Statistical mechanics for natural flocks of birds. Proc Nat Acad Sci [epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118633109.
29. Lapedes AS, Giraud BG, Liu L, Stormo GD, (1999) Correlated mutations in models of protein sequences: Phylogenetic and structural effects. Lecture Notes-Monograph Series: Statistics in Molecular Biology and Genetics 33: 236-256.
30. Schug A, Weigt M, Onuchic JN, Hwa T, Szurmant H, (2009) High-resolution protein complexes from integrating genomic information with molecular simulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 22124.
31. Marks DS, Colwell LJ, Sheridan RP, Hopf TA, Pagnani A, et al. (2011) Protein 3D Structure Computed from Evolutionary Sequence Variation. PLoS ONE 6: e28766.
32. Sadowski MI, Maksimiak K, Taylor WR, (2011) Direct correlation analysis improves fold recognition. Computational Biology and Chemistry 35: 323-332.
33. Sulkowska JI, F Morcos F, Weigt M, Hwa T, Onuchic JN, (2012) Genomics-aided structure prediction. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109: 10340-10345.
34. Nugent T, Jones DT, (2012) Accurate de novo structure prediction of large transmembrane protein domains using fragment-assembly and correlated mutation analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: E1540-E1547.
35. Hopf TA, Colwell LJ, Sheridan R, Rost B, Sander C, et al. (2012) Three-dimensional structures of membrane proteins from genomic sequencing. Cell 149: 1607-1621.
36. Dago AE, Schug A, Procaccini A, Hoch JA, Weigt M, et al. (2012) Structural basis of histidine kinase autophosphorylation deduced by integrating genomics, molecular dynamics, and mutagenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 10148.
37. Marks DS, Hopf TA, Sander C, (2012) Protein Structure Prediction from Sequence Variation. Nature Biotechnology 30: 1072-1080.
38. Taylor WR, Hamilton RS, Sadowski MI, (2013) Prediction of contacts from correlated sequence substitutions. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 23: 473-479.
39. Pearson K, (1901) On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine 2: 559-572.
40. Halabi N, Rivoire O, Leibler S, Ranganathan R, (2009) Protein Sectors: Evolutionary Units of Three-Dimensional Structure. Cell 138: 774-786.
41. Bai Z, Silverstein JW (2009) Spectral analysis of large dimensional random matrices. London: Springer.
42. Hopfield JJ, (1982) Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 79: 25542558.
43. Cocco S, Monasson R, Sessak V, (2011) High-Dimensional Inference with the generalized Hopfield Model: Principal Component Analysis and Corrections. Physical Review E 83: 051123.
44. Wu FY, (1982) The Potts Model. Rev Mod Phys 54: 235-268.
45. Rausell A, Juan D, Pazos F, Valencia A, (2010) Protein interactions and ligand binding: From protein subfamilies to functional specificity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 1995-2000.
46. Wlodawer A, Walter J, Huber R, Sjolin L, (1984) Structure of bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor: Results of joint neutron and x-ray refinement of crystal form ii. Journal of Molecular Biology 180: 301-329.
47. Bent CJ, Isaacs NW, Mitchell TJ, Riboldi-Tunnicliffe A, (2004) Crystal Structure of the Response Regulator 02 Receiver Domain, the Essential YycF Two-Component System of Streptococcus pneumoniae in both Complexed and Native States. J Bacteriol 186: 2872-2879.
48. Pai EF, Krengel U, Petsko GA, Goody RS, Kabsch W, et al. (1990) Refined crystal structure of the triphosphate conformation of h-Ras p21 at 1.35 a resolution: implications for the mechanism of gtp hydrolysis. EMBO J 9: 2351-2359.
49. Ekeberg M, Lövkvist C, Lan Y, Weigt M, E A, (2013) Improved contact prediction in proteins: Using pseudolikelihoods to infer Potts models. Phys Rev E 87: 012707.
50. Ashkenazy H, Erez E, Martz E, Pupko T, Ben-Tal N, (2010) ConSurf 2010: calculating evolutionary conservation in sequence and structure of proteins and nucleic acids. Nucleic Acids Research 38: W529-33.