Literature DB >> 15326603

Profile-profile methods provide improved fold-recognition: a study of different profile-profile alignment methods.

Tomas Ohlson1, Björn Wallner, Arne Elofsson.   

Abstract

To improve the detection of related proteins, it is often useful to include evolutionary information for both the query and target proteins. One method to include this information is by the use of profile-profile alignments, where a profile from the query protein is compared with the profiles from the target proteins. Profile-profile alignments can be implemented in several fundamentally different ways. The similarity between two positions can be calculated using a dot-product, a probabilistic model, or an information theoretical measure. Here, we present a large-scale comparison of different profile-profile alignment methods. We show that the profile-profile methods perform at least 30% better than standard sequence-profile methods both in their ability to recognize superfamily-related proteins and in the quality of the obtained alignments. Although the performance of all methods is quite similar, profile-profile methods that use a probabilistic scoring function have an advantage as they can create good alignments and show a good fold recognition capacity using the same gap-penalties, while the other methods need to use different parameters to obtain comparable performances. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15326603     DOI: 10.1002/prot.20184

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proteins        ISSN: 0887-3585


  36 in total

1.  An assessment of substitution scores for protein profile-profile comparison.

Authors:  Xugang Ye; Guoli Wang; Stephen F Altschul
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  Structural similarity to bridge sequence space: finding new families on the bridges.

Authors:  Parantu K Shah; Patrick Aloy; Peer Bork; Robert B Russell
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 6.725

Review 3.  The limits of protein sequence comparison?

Authors:  William R Pearson; Michael L Sierk
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 6.809

Review 4.  Advances in homology protein structure modeling.

Authors:  Zhexin Xiang
Journal:  Curr Protein Pept Sci       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.272

5.  On the accuracy of homology modeling and sequence alignment methods applied to membrane proteins.

Authors:  Lucy R Forrest; Christopher L Tang; Barry Honig
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2006-04-28       Impact factor: 4.033

6.  Ty3 capsid mutations reveal early and late functions of the amino-terminal domain.

Authors:  Liza S Z Larsen; Min Zhang; Nadejda Beliakova-Bethell; Virginia Bilanchone; Anne Lamsa; Kunio Nagashima; Rani Najdi; Kathryn Kosaka; Vuk Kovacevic; Jianlin Cheng; Pierre Baldi; G Wesley Hatfield; Suzanne Sandmeyer
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2007-04-18       Impact factor: 5.103

7.  Identification of correct regions in protein models using structural, alignment, and consensus information.

Authors:  Björn Wallner; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2006-03-07       Impact factor: 6.725

8.  Protein structure prediction on the Web: a case study using the Phyre server.

Authors:  Lawrence A Kelley; Michael J E Sternberg
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 13.491

9.  Using multiple templates to improve quality of homology models in automated homology modeling.

Authors:  Per Larsson; Björn Wallner; Erik Lindahl; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2008-04-25       Impact factor: 6.725

10.  Fast and accurate methods for predicting short-range constraints in protein models.

Authors:  Dominik Gront; Andrzej Kolinski
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-04-15       Impact factor: 3.686

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.