Structure-based Markov random field model for representing evolutionary constraints on functional sites

BMC Bioinformatics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Jeong, Chan Seok ^a   Kim, Dongsup ^a  

^a Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Allosteric site; Catalytic site; Coevolution analysis; Functional site; Markov random field; Protein structure

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; MARKOV PROCESSES; PROTEINS;

ALLOSTERIC SITE; CATALYTIC SITES; CO-EVOLUTION; FUNCTIONAL SITES; MARKOV RANDOM FIELDS; PROTEIN STRUCTURES;

TOPOLOGY;

ADOPTION; BINDING SITE; CATALYSIS; COEVOLUTION; DNA STRUCTURE; MODEL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; ALLOSTERIC SITE; EVOLUTION; GENETICS; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

PROTEIN;

ALLOSTERIC SITE; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; PROTEINS; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

EID: 84977546900     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-0948-2     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Lee BC, Park K, Kim D. Analysis of the residue-residue coevolution network and the functionally important residues in proteins. Proteins. 2008; 72(3):863-72.
2. Göbel U, Sander C, Schneider R, Valencia A. Correlated mutations and residue contacts in proteins. Proteins. 1994; 18(4):309-17.
3. Jeong CS, Kim D. Linear predictive coding representation of correlated mutation for protein sequence alignment. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010; 11(Suppl 2):2.
4. Kowarsch A, Fuchs A, Frishman D, Pagel P. Correlated mutations: a hallmark of phenotypic amino acid substitutions. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010; 6(9):1000923.
5. Khudyakov Y. Coevolution and HBV drug resistance. Antivir Ther (Lond). 2010; 15(3 Pt B):505-15.
6. Kuipers RKP, Joosten H-J, Verwiel E, Paans S, Akerboom J, van der Oost J, Leferink NGH, van Berkel WJH, Vriend G, Schaap PJ. Correlated mutation analyses on super-family alignments reveal functionally important residues. Proteins. 2009; 76(3):608-16.
7. Chakrabarti S, Panchenko AR. Coevolution in defining the functional specificity. Proteins. 2009; 75(1):231-40.
8. Süel GM, Lockless SW, Wall MA, Ranganathan R. Evolutionarily conserved networks of residues mediate allosteric communication in proteins. Nat Struct Biol. 2003; 10(1):59-69.
9. Weigt M, White RA, Szurmant H, Hoch JA, Hwa T. Identification of direct residue contacts in protein-protein interaction by message passing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(1):67-72.
10. Lee J, Natarajan M, Nashine VC, Socolich M, Vo T, Russ WP, Benkovic SJ, Ranganathan R. Surface sites for engineering allosteric control in proteins. Science. 2008; 322(5900):438-42.
11. Lee BC, Kim D. A new method for revealing correlated mutations under the structural and functional constraints in proteins. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25(19):2506-13.
12. Jeong CS, Kim D. Reliable and robust detection of coevolving protein residues. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2012; 25(11):705-13.
13. Feizi S, Marbach D, Médard M, Kellis M. Network deconvolution as a general method to distinguish direct dependencies in networks. Nat Biotechnol. 2013; 31(8):726-33.
14. Thomas J, Ramakrishnan N, Bailey-Kellogg C. Graphical models of residue coupling in protein families. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2008; 5(2):183-97.
15. Morcos F, Pagnani A, Lunt B, Bertolino A, Marks DS, Sander C, Zecchina R, Onuchic JN, Hwa T, Weigt M. Direct-coupling analysis of residue coevolution captures native contacts across many protein families. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(49):1293-301.
16. Balakrishnan S, Kamisetty H, Carbonell JG, Lee SI, Langmead CJ. Learning generative models for protein fold families. Proteins. 2011; 79(4):1061-78.
17. Jones DT, Buchan DWA, Cozzetto D, Pontil M. PSICOV: precise structural contact prediction using sparse inverse covariance estimation on large multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(2):184-90.
18. Kamisetty H, Ovchinnikov S, Baker D. Assessing the utility of coevolution-based residue-residue contact predictions in a sequence- and structure-rich era. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110(39):15674-9.
19. Ekeberg M, Lövkvist C, Lan Y, Weigt M, Aurell E. Improved contact prediction in proteins: using pseudolikelihoods to infer Potts models. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2013; 87(1):012707.
20. Olmea O, Rost B, Valencia A. Effective use of sequence correlation and conservation in fold recognition. J Mol Biol. 1999; 293(5):1221-39.
21. Atchley WR, Wollenberg KR, Fitch WM, Terhalle W, Dress AW. Correlations among amino acid sites in bHLH protein domains: an information theoretic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 2000; 17(1):164-78.
22. Dekker JP, Fodor A, Aldrich RW, Yellen G. A perturbation-based method for calculating explicit likelihood of evolutionary co-variance in multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics. 2004; 20(10):1565-72.
23. Marks DS, Hopf TA, Sander C. Protein structure prediction from sequence variation. Nat Rev Genet. 2012; 30(11):1072-80.
24. Tetchner S, Kosciolek T, Jones DT. Opportunities and limitations in applying coevolution-derived contacts to protein structure prediction. Bio-Algorithms Med-Syst. 2014; 10(4):243-54.
25. Monastyrskyy B, D'andrea D, Fidelis K, Tramontano A, Kryshtafovych A. Evaluation of residue-residue contact prediction in CASP10. Proteins. 2014; 82 Suppl 2:138-53.
26. Nocedal J. Updating quasi-Newton matrices with limited storage. Math Comp. 1980; 35(151):773-82.
27. Okazaki N. libLBFGS: a library of limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shannon (L-BFGS), Version 1.10. 2010. http://www.chokkan.org/software/liblbfgs/.
28. Dunn SD, Wahl LM, Gloor GB. Mutual information without the influence of phylogeny or entropy dramatically improves residue contact prediction. Bioinformatics. 2008; 24(3):333-40.
29. Capra JA, Singh M. Predicting functionally important residues from sequence conservation. Bioinformatics. 2007; 23(15):1875-82.
30. Furnham N, Holliday GL, de Beer TAP, Jacobsen JOB, Pearson WR, Thornton JM. The Catalytic Site Atlas 2.0: cataloging catalytic sites and residues identified in enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42(Database issue):485-9.
31. Huang Z, Mou L, Shen Q, Lu S, Li C, Liu X, Wang G, Li S, Geng L, Liu Y, Wu J, Chen G, Zhang J. ASD v2.0: updated content and novel features focusing on allosteric regulation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42(Database issue):510-6.
32. Mitchell A, Chang HY, Daugherty L, Fraser M, Hunter S, Lopez R, McAnulla C, McMenamin C, Nuka G, Pesseat S, Sangrador- Vegas A, Scheremetjew M, Rato C, Yong S-Y, Bateman A, Punta M, Attwood TK, Sigrist CJA, Redaschi N, Rivoire C, Xenarios I, Kahn D, Guyot D, Bork P, Letunic I, Gough J, Oates M, Haft D, Huang H, Natale DA, Wu CH, Orengo C, Sillitoe I, Mi H. The InterPro protein families database: the classification resource after 15 years. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015; 43(Database issue):213-21.
33. Fu L, Niu B, Zhu Z, Wu S, Li W. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(23):3150-2.
34. Remmert M, Biegert A, Hauser A, Söding J. HHblits: lightning-fast iterative protein sequence searching by HMM-HMM alignment. Nat Methods. 2012; 9(2):173-5.
35. Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics. 2005; 21(20):3940-1.
36. Jeon J, Nam HJ, Choi Y, Yang JS, Hwang J, Kim S. Molecular evolution of protein conformational changes revealed by a network of evolutionarily-coupled residues. Mol Biol Evol. 2011; 28(9):2675-85.
37. Liu Y, Bahar I. Sequence evolution correlates with structural dynamics. Mol Biol Evol. 2012; 29(9):2253-63.
38. Teppa E, Wilkins AD, Nielsen M, Buslje CM. Disentangling evolutionary signals: conservation, specificity determining positions and coevolution. Implication for catalytic residue prediction. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012; 13:235.
39. Talavera D, Lovell SC, Whelan S. Covariation is a poor measure of molecular coevolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2015; 32(9):2456-2468.