Jinrui Xu1, Yang Zhang. 1. Department of Medical School, Center for Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, 100 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Protein structure similarity is often measured by root mean squared deviation, global distance test score and template modeling score (TM-score). However, the scores themselves cannot provide information on how significant the structural similarity is. Also, it lacks a quantitative relation between the scores and conventional fold classifications. This article aims to answer two questions: (i) what is the statistical significance of TM-score? (ii) What is the probability of two proteins having the same fold given a specific TM-score? RESULTS: We first made an all-to-all gapless structural match on 6684 non-homologous single-domain proteins in the PDB and found that the TM-scores follow an extreme value distribution. The data allow us to assign each TM-score a P-value that measures the chance of two randomly selected proteins obtaining an equal or higher TM-score. With a TM-score at 0.5, for instance, its P-value is 5.5 x 10(-7), which means we need to consider at least 1.8 million random protein pairs to acquire a TM-score of no less than 0.5. Second, we examine the posterior probability of the same fold proteins from three datasets SCOP, CATH and the consensus of SCOP and CATH. It is found that the posterior probability from different datasets has a similar rapid phase transition around TM-score=0.5. This finding indicates that TM-score can be used as an approximate but quantitative criterion for protein topology classification, i.e. protein pairs with a TM-score >0.5 are mostly in the same fold while those with a TM-score <0.5 are mainly not in the same fold.
MOTIVATION: Protein structure similarity is often measured by root mean squared deviation, global distance test score and template modeling score (TM-score). However, the scores themselves cannot provide information on how significant the structural similarity is. Also, it lacks a quantitative relation between the scores and conventional fold classifications. This article aims to answer two questions: (i) what is the statistical significance of TM-score? (ii) What is the probability of two proteins having the same fold given a specific TM-score? RESULTS: We first made an all-to-all gapless structural match on 6684 non-homologous single-domain proteins in the PDB and found that the TM-scores follow an extreme value distribution. The data allow us to assign each TM-score a P-value that measures the chance of two randomly selected proteins obtaining an equal or higher TM-score. With a TM-score at 0.5, for instance, its P-value is 5.5 x 10(-7), which means we need to consider at least 1.8 million random protein pairs to acquire a TM-score of no less than 0.5. Second, we examine the posterior probability of the same fold proteins from three datasets SCOP, CATH and the consensus of SCOP and CATH. It is found that the posterior probability from different datasets has a similar rapid phase transition around TM-score=0.5. This finding indicates that TM-score can be used as an approximate but quantitative criterion for protein topology classification, i.e. protein pairs with a TM-score >0.5 are mostly in the same fold while those with a TM-score <0.5 are mainly not in the same fold.
Authors: Helen M Berman; Tammy Battistuz; T N Bhat; Wolfgang F Bluhm; Philip E Bourne; Kyle Burkhardt; Zukang Feng; Gary L Gilliland; Lisa Iype; Shri Jain; Phoebe Fagan; Jessica Marvin; David Padilla; Veerasamy Ravichandran; Bohdan Schneider; Narmada Thanki; Helge Weissig; John D Westbrook; Christine Zardecki Journal: Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr Date: 2002-05-29
Authors: Aizi Nor Mazila Ramli; Nor Muhammad Mahadi; Mohd Shahir Shamsir; Amir Rabu; Kwee Hong Joyce-Tan; Abdul Munir Abdul Murad; Rosli Md Illias Journal: J Comput Aided Mol Des Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 3.686
Authors: Stephanie S Tseng-Rogenski; Koji Munakata; Daniel Y Choi; Paul K Martin; Supal Mehta; Minoru Koi; Wei Zheng; Yang Zhang; John M Carethers Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 4.272