| Literature DB >> 16011796 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The interacting residues of protein and nucleic acid sequences are close to each other - they are co-located. Structure databases (like Protein Data Bank, PDB andEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2005 PMID: 16011796 PMCID: PMC1182355 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-6-170
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Main features of the SeqX analytical tool. A: Main Window, B: a dot-plot like Residue Contact Map, C: Statistical Analyses of residue co-location in a matrix format and D: the details of the Residue Contact Map elements.
Figure 2SeqX: Residue co-locations in a nucleo-protein complex (1A6Y). Residue Contact Map of a nucleo-protein complex (1A6Y) was generated by SeqX. Residue co-locations were detected within 6–9 Å radiuses from Calpha amino acid and C1' nucleotide atoms and it was not necessary to use the closest neighbor exclusion option, Ex (+/-): 0. The different kind of molecular co-locations and the main features of the protein secondary structure is color coded. It is possible to zoom in the central portion of the map (middle) and navigate it in optional directions using the mouse (left and right part of the figure). The primary structure (sequence) is readable along the x and y axis in the magnified maps and it is possible to highlight individual co-locations (green letters).
Figure 3Effect of neighbor residue exclusion on the residue contact map of a nucleoprotein complex. Residue Contact Maps of 1EQZ nucleoprotein structure using constant 5–9 Å radius around Calpha and C1' atoms but varying the Ex +/- value from 0 to 10 Å Note the successive disappearance of the right diagonal line which corresponds to co-locations of neighbor residues in the same strand.
Figure 4Effect of detection radius on specificity of SeqX (B-DNA). The number of nucleotide co-locations was monitored by SeqX using a Palindromic 146 Base-pairs long B-DNA Fragment (in 1AOI). The minimal detection radius varied from 0–6 Å (from the C1' atom), (inserted legend) while the maximal radius was 1–10 Å (X-axis). The ratio of the detected true and false Watson & Crick base-pairs was regarded to be the specificity of the measurements. EX.NEXT indicates when the closest base neighbors on the same strand were automatically excluded from the detection by the tool.
Figure 5Residue co-location vs. neighbor exclusion value. Residue co-locations were detected by SeqX in a helical protein (1FXK). The detection radius was kept constant (5–9 Å) around the Cα atoms but the neighbor exclusion value (EX +/-) was varying.
Figure 6Atomic distances in dsDNA (upper view). The distance between C1' atoms and a cytosine (C) – guanine (G) base pair is indicated. Circles are drawn around C1' atoms (radius: 3-5-7-9 Å).
Figure 7Atomic distances in dsDNA (side view). Three base pairs are indicated in a dsDNA. Circles are drawn around C1' atom of a cytosine (C) using 3-5-7-9 Å radius. G: Guanine.
Figure 8Effect of monitoring radius on detection of residue co-locations in a dsDNA. Residue Co-locations are indicated in a dsDNA (D1-D2). Circles show distances (r1, r2, r3) from the C1' atom of a cytosine (C3). Residue co-locations ware detected by SeqX tool and summarized in the table. The number of detected thymine (T), guanine (G), adenine (A) depended on the radius. Shaded circle indicate area between r3 and r2 radius. G8, the expected complementary base to C3 was most selectively found using r2 radius and Ex. +/- 1 option which excluded closest neighbors to C3 in D1 from the detection.
Figure 9Atomic distances in a protein structure of two parallel alpha helices. Distances between C-α atoms are indicated around ILE88. The distance to the -4th ARG84is 6.2 A and to the +4th GLU92 is 6.0 A. This indicates that Ex. +/- 4 might be necessary to exclude the aspecific neighbor effects.
Figure 10Frequency of residue co-locations_1-3. A subset of amino acid co-locations (34630) were identified by SeqX in proteins which contained preferentially alpha helices. The frequency of these co-locations were compared to the frequency of residue co-locations with data from literature such as (1) Helical Interface, HI_M+S [8]; (2) Residue-Residue Contacts, Cij [6] and (3) chaperon, CH3 data [5].
Figure 11Real vs. calculated residue co-locations. The relative frequency of real residue co-locations were determined by SeqX in 80 different protein structures and compared to the relative frequency of calculated co-locations in artificial, random protein sequences (C). The 200 possible residue pairs provided by the 20 amino acids were grouped into 4 subgroups regarding their physico-chemical compatibility to each other i.e. favored (+) and un-favored (-) regarding hydrophobicity and charge. (HP+: hydrophobe – hydrophobe and lipophobe – lipophobe; HP-: hydrophobe – lipophobe; CH+: positive – negative and hydrophobe – charged; CH-: positive-positive and negative -negative and lipophobe – charged interactions). The bars represent the mean +/- S.E.M. (n = 80 for real structures and n = 10 for artificial sequences). Student's t-test was applied to evaluate the results.