Literature DB >> 16863650

Partitioning protein structures into domains: why is it so difficult?

Timothy A Holland1, Stella Veretnik, Ilya N Shindyalov, Philip E Bourne.   

Abstract

This analysis takes an in-depth look into the difficulties encountered by automatic methods for domain decomposition from three-dimensional structure. The analysis involves a multi-faceted set of criteria including the integrity of secondary structure elements, the tendency toward fragmentation of domains, domain boundary consistency and topology. The strength of the analysis comes from the use of a new comprehensive benchmark dataset, which is based on consensus among experts (CATH, SCOP and AUTHORS of the 3D structures) and covers 30 distinct architectures and 211 distinct topologies as defined by CATH. Furthermore, over 66% of the structures are multi-domain proteins; each domain combination occurring once per dataset. The performance of four automatic domain assignment methods, DomainParser, NCBI, PDP and PUU, is carefully analyzed using this broad spectrum of topology combinations and knowledge of rules and assumptions built into each algorithm. We conclude that it is practically impossible for an automatic method to achieve the level of performance of human experts. However, we propose specific improvements to automatic methods as well as broadening the concept of a structural domain. Such work is prerequisite for establishing improved approaches to domain recognition. (The benchmark dataset is available from http://pdomains.sdsc.edu).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16863650     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.05.060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Biol        ISSN: 0022-2836            Impact factor:   5.469


  40 in total

Review 1.  Protein folds and protein folding.

Authors:  R Dustin Schaeffer; Valerie Daggett
Journal:  Protein Eng Des Sel       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 1.650

2.  Generation of a consensus protein domain dictionary.

Authors:  R Dustin Schaeffer; Amanda L Jonsson; Andrew M Simms; Valerie Daggett
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-11-09       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  Proteome evolution and the metabolic origins of translation and cellular life.

Authors:  Derek Caetano-Anollés; Kyung Mo Kim; Jay E Mittenthal; Gustavo Caetano-Anollés
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  Protein domain assignment from the recurrence of locally similar structures.

Authors:  Chin-Hsien Tai; Vichetra Sam; Jean-Francois Gibrat; Jean Garnier; Peter J Munson; Byungkook Lee
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2010-12-22

5.  DDOMAIN: Dividing structures into domains using a normalized domain-domain interaction profile.

Authors:  Hongyi Zhou; Bin Xue; Yaoqi Zhou
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 6.725

6.  A topological algorithm for identification of structural domains of proteins.

Authors:  Frank Emmert-Streib; Arcady Mushegian
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2007-07-03       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 7.  Nothing about protein structure classification makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Authors:  Ruben E Valas; Song Yang; Philip E Bourne
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 6.809

8.  Conformational flexibility of the leucine binding protein examined by protein domain coarse-grained molecular dynamics.

Authors:  Iwona Siuda; Lea Thøgersen
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 1.810

9.  Improving protein structure similarity searches using domain boundaries based on conserved sequence information.

Authors:  Kenneth Evan Thompson; Yanli Wang; Tom Madej; Stephen H Bryant
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2009-05-19

10.  A modular kernel approach for integrative analysis of protein domain boundaries.

Authors:  Paul D Yoo; Bing Bing Zhou; Albert Y Zomaya
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 3.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.