C Hadley1, D T Jones. 1. Protein Structure Group Department of Biological Sciences University of Warwick Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several methods of structural classification have been developed to introduce some order to the large amount of data present in the Protein Data Bank. Such methods facilitate structural comparisons and provide a greater understanding of structure and function. The most widely used and comprehensive databases are SCOP, CATH and FSSP, which represent three unique methods of classifying protein structures: purely manual, a combination of manual and automated, and purely automated, respectively. In order to develop reliable template libraries and benchmarks for protein-fold recognition, a systematic comparison of these databases has been carried out to determine their overall agreement in classifying protein structures. RESULTS: Approximately two-thirds of the protein chains in each database are common to all three databases. Despite employing different methods, and basing their systems on different rules of protein structure and taxonomy, SCOP, CATH and FSSP agree on the majority of their classifications. Discrepancies and inconsistencies are accounted for by a small number of explanations. Other interesting features have been identified, and various differences between manual and automatic classification methods are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Using these databases requires an understanding of the rules upon which they are based; each method offers certain advantages depending on the biological requirements and knowledge of the user. The degree of discrepancy between the systems also has an impact on reliability of prediction methods that employ these schemes as benchmarks. To generate accurate fold templates for threading, we extract information from a consensus database, encompassing agreements between SCOP, CATH and FSSP.
BACKGROUND: Several methods of structural classification have been developed to introduce some order to the large amount of data present in the Protein Data Bank. Such methods facilitate structural comparisons and provide a greater understanding of structure and function. The most widely used and comprehensive databases are SCOP, CATH and FSSP, which represent three unique methods of classifying protein structures: purely manual, a combination of manual and automated, and purely automated, respectively. In order to develop reliable template libraries and benchmarks for protein-fold recognition, a systematic comparison of these databases has been carried out to determine their overall agreement in classifying protein structures. RESULTS: Approximately two-thirds of the protein chains in each database are common to all three databases. Despite employing different methods, and basing their systems on different rules of protein structure and taxonomy, SCOP, CATH and FSSP agree on the majority of their classifications. Discrepancies and inconsistencies are accounted for by a small number of explanations. Other interesting features have been identified, and various differences between manual and automatic classification methods are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Using these databases requires an understanding of the rules upon which they are based; each method offers certain advantages depending on the biological requirements and knowledge of the user. The degree of discrepancy between the systems also has an impact on reliability of prediction methods that employ these schemes as benchmarks. To generate accurate fold templates for threading, we extract information from a consensus database, encompassing agreements between SCOP, CATH and FSSP.
Authors: Anuradha Kumar; Woo S Joo; Gretchen Meinke; Stephanie Moine; Elena N Naumova; Peter A Bullock Journal: J Virol Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 5.103