Literature DB >> 16276528

Target selection and deselection at the Berkeley Structural Genomics Center.

John-Marc Chandonia1, Sung-Hou Kim, Steven E Brenner.   

Abstract

At the Berkeley Structural Genomics Center (BSGC), our goal is to obtain a near-complete structural complement of proteins in the minimal organisms Mycoplasma genitalium and M. pneumoniae, two closely related pathogens. Current targets for structure determination have been selected in six major stages, starting with those predicted to be most tractable to high throughput study and likely to yield new structural information. We report on the process used to select these proteins, as well as our target deselection procedure. Target deselection reduces experimental effort by eliminating targets similar to those recently solved by the structural biology community or other centers. We measure the impact of the 69 structures solved at the BSGC as of July 2004 on structure prediction coverage of the M. pneumoniae and M. genitalium proteomes. The number of Mycoplasma proteins for which the fold could first be reliably assigned based on structures solved at the BSGC (24 M. pneumoniae and 21 M. genitalium) is approximately 25% of the total resulting from work at all structural genomics centers and the worldwide structural biology community (94 M. pneumoniae and 86 M. genitalium) during the same period. As the number of structures contributed by the BSGC during that period is less than 1% of the total worldwide output, the benefits of a focused target selection strategy are apparent. If the structures of all current targets were solved, the percentage of M. pneumoniae proteins for which folds could be reliably assigned would increase from approximately 57% (391 of 687) at present to around 80% (550 of 687), and the percentage of the proteome that could be accurately modeled would increase from around 37% (254 of 687) to about 64% (438 of 687). In M. genitalium, the percentage of the proteome that could be structurally annotated based on structures of our remaining targets would rise from 72% (348 of 486) to around 76% (371 of 486), with the percentage of accurately modeled proteins would rise from 50% (243 of 486) to 58% (283 of 486). Sequences and data on experimental progress on our targets are available in the public databases TargetDB and PEPCdb. 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16276528     DOI: 10.1002/prot.20674

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


  16 in total

1.  Structure-based identification of catalytic residues.

Authors:  Ran Yahalom; Dan Reshef; Ayana Wiener; Sagiv Frankel; Nir Kalisman; Boaz Lerner; Chen Keasar
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2011-04-12

2.  The challenge of protein structure determination--lessons from structural genomics.

Authors:  Lukasz Slabinski; Lukasz Jaroszewski; Ana P C Rodrigues; Leszek Rychlewski; Ian A Wilson; Scott A Lesley; Adam Godzik
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 6.725

3.  NMR structure of the N-terminal domain of the replication initiator protein DnaA.

Authors:  Thomas J Lowery; Jeffrey G Pelton; John-Marc Chandonia; Rosalind Kim; Hisao Yokota; David E Wemmer
Journal:  J Struct Funct Genomics       Date:  2007-08-07

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  The impact of extremophiles on structural genomics (and vice versa).

Authors:  Francis E Jenney; Michael W W Adams
Journal:  Extremophiles       Date:  2007-06-13       Impact factor: 2.395

6.  Evolutionary constraints on structural similarity in orthologs and paralogs.

Authors:  Mark E Peterson; Feng Chen; Jeffery G Saven; David S Roos; Patricia C Babbitt; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 6.725

Review 7.  A simple recipe for the non-expert bioinformaticist for building experimentally-testable hypotheses for proteins with no known homologs.

Authors:  Alexander Zawaira; Youtaro Shibayama
Journal:  J Struct Funct Genomics       Date:  2012-09-07

Review 8.  Intrinsic disorder and functional proteomics.

Authors:  Predrag Radivojac; Lilia M Iakoucheva; Christopher J Oldfield; Zoran Obradovic; Vladimir N Uversky; A Keith Dunker
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2006-12-08       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 9.  Lessons from structural genomics.

Authors:  Thomas C Terwilliger; David Stuart; Shigeyuki Yokoyama
Journal:  Annu Rev Biophys       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 12.981

Review 10.  Upcoming challenges for multiple sequence alignment methods in the high-throughput era.

Authors:  Carsten Kemena; Cedric Notredame
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 6.937

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.