Literature DB >> 15521074

Implications of structural genomics target selection strategies: Pfam5000, whole genome, and random approaches.

John-Marc Chandonia1, Steven E Brenner.   

Abstract

Structural genomics is an international effort to determine the three-dimensional shapes of all important biological macromolecules, with a primary focus on proteins. Target proteins should be selected according to a strategy that is medically and biologically relevant, of good value, and tractable. As an option to consider, we present the "Pfam5000" strategy, which involves selecting the 5000 most important families from the Pfam database as sources for targets. We compare the Pfam5000 strategy to several other proposed strategies that would require similar numbers of targets. These strategies include complete solution of several small to moderately sized bacterial proteomes, partial coverage of the human proteome, and random selection of approximately 5000 targets from sequenced genomes. We measure the impact that successful implementation of these strategies would have upon structural interpretation of the proteins in Swiss-Prot, TrEMBL, and 131 complete proteomes (including 10 of eukaryotes) from the Proteome Analysis database at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI). Solving the structures of proteins from the 5000 largest Pfam families would allow accurate fold assignment for approximately 68% of all prokaryotic proteins (covering 59% of residues) and 61% of eukaryotic proteins (40% of residues). More fine-grained coverage that would allow accurate modeling of these proteins would require an order of magnitude more targets. The Pfam5000 strategy may be modified in several ways, for example, to focus on larger families, bacterial sequences, or eukaryotic sequences; as long as secondary consideration is given to large families within Pfam, coverage results vary only slightly. In contrast, focusing structural genomics on a single tractable genome would have only a limited impact in structural knowledge of other proteomes: A significant fraction (about 30-40% of the proteins and 40-60% of the residues) of each proteome is classified in small families, which may have little overlap with other species of interest. Random selection of targets from one or more genomes is similar to the Pfam5000 strategy in that proteins from larger families are more likely to be chosen, but substantial effort would be spent on small families.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15521074     DOI: 10.1002/prot.20298

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


  28 in total

1.  Crystal structure of a novel non-Pfam protein PF2046 solved using low resolution B-factor sharpening and multi-crystal averaging methods.

Authors:  Jing Su; Yang Li; Neil Shaw; Weihong Zhou; Min Zhang; Hao Xu; Bi-Cheng Wang; Zhi-Jie Liu
Journal:  Protein Cell       Date:  2010-06-04       Impact factor: 14.870

2.  Modeling of protein binary complexes using structural mass spectrometry data.

Authors:  J K Amisha Kamal; Mark R Chance
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2007-11-27       Impact factor: 6.725

Review 3.  Structural genomics: keeping up with expanding knowledge of the protein universe.

Authors:  Marek Grabowski; Andrzej Joachimiak; Zbyszek Otwinowski; Wladek Minor
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2007-06-22       Impact factor: 6.809

4.  On the origin and highly likely completeness of single-domain protein structures.

Authors:  Yang Zhang; Isaac A Hubner; Adrian K Arakaki; Eugene Shakhnovich; Jeffrey Skolnick
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-02-14       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 5.  Structure-based inference of molecular functions of proteins of unknown function from Berkeley Structural Genomics Center.

Authors:  Dong Hae Shin; Jingtong Hou; John-Marc Chandonia; Debanu Das; In-Geol Choi; Rosalind Kim; Sung-Hou Kim
Journal:  J Struct Funct Genomics       Date:  2007-09-02

6.  Structural genomics is the largest contributor of novel structural leverage.

Authors:  Rajesh Nair; Jinfeng Liu; Ta-Tsen Soong; Thomas B Acton; John K Everett; Andrei Kouranov; Andras Fiser; Adam Godzik; Lukasz Jaroszewski; Christine Orengo; Gaetano T Montelione; Burkhard Rost
Journal:  J Struct Funct Genomics       Date:  2009-02-05

7.  Bacterial protein structures reveal phylum dependent divergence.

Authors:  Matthew D Shortridge; Thomas Triplet; Peter Revesz; Mark A Griep; Robert Powers
Journal:  Comput Biol Chem       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 2.877

8.  The Sorcerer II Global Ocean Sampling expedition: expanding the universe of protein families.

Authors:  Shibu Yooseph; Granger Sutton; Douglas B Rusch; Aaron L Halpern; Shannon J Williamson; Karin Remington; Jonathan A Eisen; Karla B Heidelberg; Gerard Manning; Weizhong Li; Lukasz Jaroszewski; Piotr Cieplak; Christopher S Miller; Huiying Li; Susan T Mashiyama; Marcin P Joachimiak; Christopher van Belle; John-Marc Chandonia; David A Soergel; Yufeng Zhai; Kannan Natarajan; Shaun Lee; Benjamin J Raphael; Vineet Bafna; Robert Friedman; Steven E Brenner; Adam Godzik; David Eisenberg; Jack E Dixon; Susan S Taylor; Robert L Strausberg; Marvin Frazier; J Craig Venter
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  The CATH hierarchy revisited-structural divergence in domain superfamilies and the continuity of fold space.

Authors:  Alison Cuff; Oliver C Redfern; Lesley Greene; Ian Sillitoe; Tony Lewis; Mark Dibley; Adam Reid; Frances Pearl; Tim Dallman; Annabel Todd; Richard Garratt; Janet Thornton; Christine Orengo
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 5.006

10.  Targeting the human cancer pathway protein interaction network by structural genomics.

Authors:  Yuanpeng Janet Huang; Dehua Hang; Long Jason Lu; Liang Tong; Mark B Gerstein; Gaetano T Montelione
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2008-05-18       Impact factor: 5.911

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.