| Literature DB >> 24760183 |
Mohit Mazumder1, Narendra Padhan2, Alok Bhattacharya3, Samudrala Gourinath1.
Abstract
The diversity of functions carried out by EF hand-containing calcium-binding proteins is due to various interactions made by these proteins as well as the range of affinity levels for Ca²⁺ displayed by them. However, accurate methods are not available for prediction of binding affinities. Here, amino acid patterns of canonical EF hand sequences obtained from available crystal structures were used to develop a classifier that distinguishes Ca²⁺-binding loops and non Ca²⁺-binding regions with 100% accuracy. To investigate further, we performed a proteome-wide prediction for E. histolytica, and classified known EF-hand proteins. We compared our results with published methods on the E. histolytica proteome scan, and demonstrated our method to be more specific and accurate for predicting potential canonical Ca²⁺-binding loops. Furthermore, we annotated canonical EF-hand motifs and classified them based on their Ca²⁺-binding affinities using support vector machines. Using a novel method generated from position-specific scoring metrics and then tested against three different experimentally derived EF-hand-motif datasets, predictions of Ca²⁺-binding affinities were between 87 and 90% accurate. Our results show that the tool described here is capable of predicting Ca²⁺-binding affinity constants of EF-hand proteins.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24760183 PMCID: PMC3997525 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096202
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Amino acid composition of the 12-mer long Ca2+-binding region (“Interacting”) and the non-binding region (“Non-Interacting”) of EF-hand proteins.
Summary of macroscopic binding constants and thermodynamic parameters obtained from the ITC studies of Ca2+-binding isotherm of EhCaBPs at 25°C.
| Ligand | Titrand | No of experimental Ca2+- binding sites (n) | KA (M-1) | Kd | ΔH (cal/mol) | ΔS (cal/mol) | ΔG (kcal/mol) |
|
|
| 4 | K1 = 5.25×103±4.0×102 | 130.72 µM | −1860±0 | 10.8 | −4.84 |
| K2 = 1.41×104±9.5×102 | 2.3×105±0 | 790 | −4.6×102 | ||||
| K3 = 5.10×105±2.8×104 | 2.4×105±1.82×103 | −780 | −7.56 | ||||
| K4 = 1.55×106±7.3×104 | −7981±1.86×103 | 1.56 | −8.44 | ||||
|
| 2 | K1 = 4.00×106±5.3×105 | 1.85 µM | −1.605×104±86.6 | −23.6 | −9.0 | |
| K2 = 7.28×104±5.3×103 | −7573±104 | −3.16 | −6.63 | ||||
|
| 2 | K = 1.18×107±1.47×106 | 85 nM | −1.84×104±61.79 | −29.4 | −9.64 | |
|
| 2 | K1 = 1.07×105±1.1×104 | 46 µM | 702±17.6 | 25.4 | −6.86 | |
| K2 = 4.44×103±1.1×102 | 5244±45.9 | 34.3 | −4.97 | ||||
|
| 2 | K1 = 1.04×106±2.5×105 | 3.12 µM | −1807±96.5 | 21.5 | −8.2 | |
| K2 = 9.86×104±6.8×103 | −5413±96.5 | 4.69 | −6.81 |
The Performance of SVM Models with different learning parameters on D1 and D2 dataset.
| Features | C | g | SN | SP | ACC | MCC |
| Binary | 8 | 0.008 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 1 |
| AA | 0.125 | 0.008 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 1 |
Using binary patterns and AA (amino acid) composition [γ (g) (in RBF kernel), c: parameter for trade-off between training error & margin] where SN–sensitivity, SP–specificity, ACC-accuracy, MCC–Matthews Correlation Coefficient.
The Performance of SVM Models on PSSM based training dataset D3 & D4.
| Features | C | g | SN | SP | ACC | MCC | AUC/ROC |
| AC&CC | 32768 | 0 | 90.97 | 87.1 | 90.30 | 0.78 | 0.94 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AC&HC&HYC | 2 | 0.13 | 94.44 | 91.0 | 94.78 | 0.86 | 0.97 |
| AC&HYC&CC | 2048 | 0 | 91.67 | 90.32 | 91.42 | 0.82 | 0.96 |
| AC&HYC | 2048 | 0 | 91.67 | 88.7 | 91.04 | 0.8 | 0.95 |
The Performance of SVM Models on PSSM based training dataset D3 & D4 with different learning parameters on various hybrid models [γ (g) (in RBF kernel), c: parameter for trade-off between training error & margin] where SN–sensitivity, SP–specificity, ACC-accuracy, MCC–Matthews Correlation Coefficient, AUC/ROC-Area under curve/ Receiver Operating Curve.
The Performance of SVM Models on test dataset D5.
| Features | SN | SP | ACC | MCC |
| AC&CC | 90.91 | 75.00 | 84.21 | 0.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AC&HC&HYC | 72.73 | 87.50 | 78.95 | 0.6 |
| AC&HYC&CC | 90.91 | 75.00 | 84.21 | 0.67 |
| AC&HYC | 90.91 | 75.00 | 84.21 | 0.67 |
The Performance of SVM Models on test dataset D5 (experimental binding affinities obtained from literature) with different learning parameters.
The Performance of SVM Models on validation dataset with experimentally derived binding affinity from EhCaBPs (D7).
| Features | SN | SP | ACC | MCC |
| AC&CC | 83.33 | 60 | 72.73 | 0.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AC&HC&HYC | 83.33 | 80 | 81.82 | 0.63 |
| AC&HYC&CC | 83.33 | 60 | 72.73 | 0.45 |
| AC&HYC | 66.67 | 60 | 63.64 | 0.27 |
The Performance of SVM Models on validation dataset with experimentally derived binding affinity from EhCaBPs (D7)with different learning parameters on various hybrid models [γ (g) (in RBF kernel), c: parameter for trade-off between training error & margin] where SN–sensitivity, SP–specificity, ACC-accuracy, MCC–Matthews Correlation Coefficient, AUC/ROC-Area under curve/ Receiver Operating Curve.