Conserved key amino acid positions (CKAAPs) derived from the analysis of common substructures in proteins

An all-against-all protein structure comparison using the Combinatorial Extension (CE) algorithm applied to a representative set of PDB structures revealed a gallery of common substructures in proteins (http://cl.sdsc.edu/ce.html). These substructures represent commonly identified folds, domains, or components thereof. Most of the subsequences forming these similar substructures have no significant sequence similarity. We present a method to identify conserved amino acid positions and residue-dependent property clusters within these subsequences starting with structure alignments. Each of the subsequences is aligned to its homologues in SWALL, a nonredundant protein sequence database. The most similar sequences are purged into a common frequency matrix, and weighted homologues of each one of the subsequences are used in scoring for conserved key amino acid positions (CKAAPs). We have set the top 20% of the high-scoring positions in each substructure to be CKAAPs. It is hypothesized that CKAAPs may be responsible for the common folding patterns in either a local or global view of the protein-folding pathway. Where a significant number of structures exist, CKAAPs have also been identified in structure alignments of complete polypeptide chains from the same protein family or superfamily. Evidence to support the presence of CKAAPs comes from other computational approaches and experimental studies of mutation and protein-folding experiments, notably the Paracelsus challenge. Finally, the structural environment of CKAAPs versus non-CKAAPs is examined for solvent accessibility, hydrogen bonding, and secondary structure. The identification of CKAAPs has important implications for protein engineering, fold recognition, modeling, and structure prediction studies and is dependent on the availability of structures and an accurate structure alignment methodology. Proteins 2001;42:148-163.     

A database of protein structure families with common folding motifs.

The availability of fast and robust algorithms for protein structure comparison provides an opportunity to produce a database of three-dimensional comparisons, called families of structurally similar proteins (FSSP). The database currently contains an extended structural family for each of 154 representative (below 30% sequence identity) protein chains. Each data set contains: the search structure; all its relatives with 70-30% sequence identity, aligned structurally; and all other proteins from the representative set that contain substructures significantly similar to the search structure. Very close relatives (above 70% sequence identity) rarely have significant structural differences and are excluded. The alignments of remote relatives are the result of pairwise all-against-all structural comparisons in the set of 154 representative protein chains. The comparisons were carried out with each of three novel automatic algorithms that cover different aspects of protein structure similarity. The user of the database has the choice between strict rigid-body comparisons and comparisons that take into account interdomain motion or geometrical distortions; and, between comparisons that require strictly sequential ordering of segments and comparisons, which allow altered topology of loop connections or chain reversals. The data sets report the structurally equivalent residues in the form of a multiple alignment and as a list of matching fragments to facilitate inspection by three-dimensional graphics. If substructures are ignored, the result is a database of structure alignments of full-length proteins, including those in the twilight zone of sequence similarity.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

CKAAPs DB: a conserved key amino acid positions database

The Conserved Key Amino Acid Positions DataBase (CKAAPs DB) provides access to an analysis of structurally similar proteins with dissimilar sequences where key residues within a common fold are identified. The derivation and significance of CKAAPs starting from pairwise structure alignments is described fully in Reddy et al. [Reddy,B.V.B., Li,W.W., Shindyalov,I.N. and Bourne,P.E. (2000) PROTEINS:, in press]. The CKAAPs identified from this theoretical analysis are provided to experimentalists and theoreticians for potential use in protein engineering and modeling. It has been suggested that CKAAPs may be crucial features for protein folding, structural stability and function. Over 170 substructures, as defined by the Combinatorial Extension (CE) database, which are found in approximately 3000 representative polypeptide chains have been analyzed and are available in the CKAAPs DB. CKAAPs DB also provides CKAAPs of the representative set of proteins derived from the CE and FSSP databases. Thus the database contains over 5000 representative poly-peptide chains, covering all known structures in the PDB. A web interface to a relational database permits fast retrieval of structure-sequence alignments, CKAAPs and associated statistics. Users may query by PDB ID, protein name, function and Enzyme Classification number. Users may also submit protein alignments of their own to obtain CKAAPs. An interface to display CKAAPs on each structure from a web browser is also being implemented. CKAAPs DB is maintained by the San Diego Supercomputer Center and accessible at the URL http://ckaaps.sdsc.edu.     

A database and tools for 3-D protein structure comparison and alignment using the Combinatorial Extension (CE) algorithm

The database reported here is derived using the Combinatorial Extension (CE) algorithm which compares pairs of protein polypeptide chains and provides a list of structurally similar proteins along with their structure alignments. Using CE, structure-structure alignments can provide insights into biological function. When a protein of known function is shown to be structurally similar to a protein of unknown function, a relationship might be inferred; a relationship not necessarily detectable from sequence comparison alone. Establishing structure-structure relationships in this way is of great importance as we enter an era of structural genomics where there is a likelihood of an increasing number of structures with unknown functions being determined. Thus the CE database is an example of a useful tool in the annotation of protein structures of unknown function. Comparisons can be performed on the complete PDB or on a structurally representative subset of proteins. The source protein(s) can be from the PDB (updated monthly) or uploaded by the user. CE provides sequence alignments resulting from structural alignments and Cartesian coordinates for the aligned structures, which may be analyzed using the supplied Compare3D Java applet, or downloaded for further local analysis. Searches can be run from the CE web site, http://cl.sdsc.edu/ce.html, or the database and software downloaded from the site for local use.     

Verification of the PREFAB alignment database

Verification of the PREFAB database containing golden standard protein alignments was performed. It has revealed a significant number of differences between the sequences from PREFAB and PDB databases. It was shown that, compared with the sequences given in the PDB, 575 alignments referred to a sequence with a gap; such alignments were excluded. Furthermore, compared with the PDB sequences, single substitutions or insertions were found for 440 amino acid sequences from PREFAB; these sequences were edited. SCOP domain analysis has shown that only 502 alignments in the resulting set contain sequences from the same family. Finally, eliminating duplicates, we have created a new golden standard alignment database PREFAB-P based on PREFAB; the PREFAB-P database contains 581 alignments.     

MUSTA--a general, efficient, automated method for multiple structure alignment and detection of common motifs: application to proteins.

Here we present an algorithm designed to carry out multiple structure alignment and to detect recurring substructural motifs. So far we have implemented it for comparison of protein structures. However, this general method is applicable to comparisons of RNA structures and to detection of a pharmacophore in a series of drug molecules. Further, its sequence order independence permits its application to detection of motifs on protein surfaces, interfaces, and binding/active sites. While there are many methods designed to carry out pairwise structure comparisons, there are only a handful geared toward the multiple structure alignment task. Most of these tackle multiple structure comparison as a collection of pairwise structure comparison tasks. The multiple structural alignment algorithm presented here automatically finds the largest common substructure (core) of atoms that appears in all the molecules in the ensemble. The detection of the core and the structural alignment are done simultaneously. The algorithm begins by finding small substructures that are common to all the proteins in the ensemble. One of the molecules is considered the reference; the others are the source molecules. The small substructures are stored in special arrays termed combinatorial buckets, which define sets of multistructural alignments from the source molecules that coincide with the same small set of reference atoms (C(alpha)-atoms here). These substructures are initial small fragments that have congruent copies in each of the proteins. The substructures are extended, through the processing of the combinatorial buckets, by clustering the superpositions (transformations). The method is very efficient.     

Consensus Data Mining (CDM) Protein Secondary Structure Prediction Server: combining GOR V and Fragment Database Mining (FDM)

One of the challenges in protein secondary structure prediction is to overcome the cross-validated 80% prediction accuracy barrier. Here, we propose a novel approach to surpass this barrier. Instead of using a single algorithm that relies on a limited data set for training, we combine two complementary methods having different strengths: Fragment Database Mining (FDM) and GOR V. FDM harnesses the availability of the known protein structures in the Protein Data Bank and provides highly accurate secondary structure predictions when sequentially similar structural fragments are identified. In contrast, the GOR V algorithm is based on information theory, Bayesian statistics, and PSI-BLAST multiple sequence alignments to predict the secondary structure of residues inside a sliding window along a protein chain. A combination of these two different methods benefits from the large number of structures in the PDB and significantly improves the secondary structure prediction accuracy, resulting in Q3 ranging from 67.5 to 93.2%, depending on the availability of highly similar fragments in the Protein Data Bank.     

Verification of the PREFAB alignment database

The verification of the PREFAB database containing golden standard protein alignments was performed. It has revealed a significant number of differences between the sequences from PREFAB and PDB databases. It was shown that compared to the sequences given in the PDB database 575 alignments refered to a sequence with a gap; such alignments were excluded. Furthermore, compared to the PDB-sequences a single substitute or the insertions were found for 440 aminoacid sequences from PREFAB database; these sequences were edited. SCOP domain analysis has shown that only 502 alignments in the resulting set contain the sequences from the same family. Finally, eliminating duplicates, we have created a new golden standard alignment database PREFAB-P based on PREFAB; the PREFAB-P database contains 581 alignments.     

Structure alignment based on coding of local geometric measures

Background  

A structure alignment method based on a local geometric property is presented and its performance is tested in pairwise and multiple structure alignments. In this approach, the writhing number, a quantity originating from integral formulas of Vassiliev knot invariants, is used as a local geometric measure. This measure is used in a sliding window to calculate the local writhe down the length of the protein chain. By encoding the distribution of writhing numbers across all the structures in the protein databank (PDB), protein geometries are represented in a 20-letter alphabet. This encoding transforms the structure alignment problem into a sequence alignment problem and allows the well-established algorithms of sequence alignment to be employed. Such geometric alignments offer distinct advantages over structural alignments in Cartesian coordinates as it better handles structural subtleties associated with slight twists and bends that distort one structure relative to another.     

Restricted N-glycan Conformational Space in the PDB and Its Implication in Glycan Structure Modeling

Understanding glycan structure and dynamics is central to understanding protein-carbohydrate recognition and its role in protein-protein interactions. Given the difficulties in obtaining the glycan''s crystal structure in glycoconjugates due to its flexibility and heterogeneity, computational modeling could play an important role in providing glycosylated protein structure models. To address if glycan structures available in the PDB can be used as templates or fragments for glycan modeling, we present a survey of the N-glycan structures of 35 different sequences in the PDB. Our statistical analysis shows that the N-glycan structures found on homologous glycoproteins are significantly conserved compared to the random background, suggesting that N-glycan chains can be confidently modeled with template glycan structures whose parent glycoproteins share sequence similarity. On the other hand, N-glycan structures found on non-homologous glycoproteins do not show significant global structural similarity. Nonetheless, the internal substructures of these N-glycans, particularly, the substructures that are closer to the protein, show significantly similar structures, suggesting that such substructures can be used as fragments in glycan modeling. Increased interactions with protein might be responsible for the restricted conformational space of N-glycan chains. Our results suggest that structure prediction/modeling of N-glycans of glycoconjugates using structure database could be effective and different modeling approaches would be needed depending on the availability of template structures.     

MALIDUP: a database of manually constructed structure alignments for duplicated domain pairs

We describe MALIDUP (manual alignments of duplicated domains), a database of 241 pairwise structure alignments for homologous domains originated by internal duplication within the same polypeptide chain. Since duplicated domains within a protein frequently diverge in function and thus in sequence, this would be the first database of structurally similar homologs that is not strongly biased by sequence or functional similarity. Our manual alignments in most cases agree with the automatic structural alignments generated by several commonly used programs. This carefully constructed database could be used in studies on protein evolution and as a reference for testing structure alignment programs. The database is available at http://prodata.swmed.edu/malidup.     

Non-sequential structure-based alignments reveal topology-independent core packing arrangements in proteins

MOTIVATION: Proteins of the same class often share a secondary structure packing arrangement but differ in how the secondary structure units are ordered in the sequence. We find that proteins that share a common core also share local sequence-structure similarities, and these can be exploited to align structures with different topologies. In this study, segments from a library of local sequence-structure alignments were assembled hierarchically, enforcing the compactness and conserved inter-residue contacts but not sequential ordering. Previous structure-based alignment methods often ignore sequence similarity, local structural equivalence and compactness. RESULTS: The new program, SCALI (Structural Core ALIgnment), can efficiently find conserved packing arrangements, even if they are non-sequentially ordered in space. SCALI alignments conserve remote sequence similarity and contain fewer alignment errors. Clustering of our pairwise non-sequential alignments shows that recurrent packing arrangements exist in topologically different structures. For example, the three-layer sandwich domain architecture may be divided into four structural subclasses based on internal packing arrangements. These subclasses represent an intermediate level of structure classification, more general than topology, but more specific than architecture as defined in CATH. A strategy is presented for developing a set of predictive hidden Markov models based on multiple SCALI alignments.     

Sequence-similar, structure-dissimilar protein pairs in the PDB

It is often assumed that in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), two proteins with similar sequences will also have similar structures. Accordingly, it has proved useful to develop subsets of the PDB from which "redundant" structures have been removed, based on a sequence-based criterion for similarity. Similarly, when predicting protein structure using homology modeling, if a template structure for modeling a target sequence is selected by sequence alone, this implicitly assumes that all sequence-similar templates are equivalent. Here, we show that this assumption is often not correct and that standard approaches to create subsets of the PDB can lead to the loss of structurally and functionally important information. We have carried out sequence-based structural superpositions and geometry-based structural alignments of a large number of protein pairs to determine the extent to which sequence similarity ensures structural similarity. We find many examples where two proteins that are similar in sequence have structures that differ significantly from one another. The source of the structural differences usually has a functional basis. The number of such proteins pairs that are identified and the magnitude of the dissimilarity depend on the approach that is used to calculate the differences; in particular sequence-based structure superpositioning will identify a larger number of structurally dissimilar pairs than geometry-based structural alignments. When two sequences can be aligned in a statistically meaningful way, sequence-based structural superpositioning provides a meaningful measure of structural differences. This approach and geometry-based structure alignments reveal somewhat different information and one or the other might be preferable in a given application. Our results suggest that in some cases, notably homology modeling, the common use of nonredundant datasets, culled from the PDB based on sequence, may mask important structural and functional information. We have established a data base of sequence-similar, structurally dissimilar protein pairs that will help address this problem (http://luna.bioc.columbia.edu/rachel/seqsimstrdiff.htm).     

The FSSP database of structurally aligned protein fold families.

FSSP (families of structurally similar proteins) is a database of structural alignments of proteins in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). The database currently contains an extended structural family for each of 330 representative protein chains. Each data set contains structural alignments of one search structure with all other structurally significantly similar proteins in the representative set (remote homologs, < 30% sequence identity), as well as all structures in the Protein Data Bank with 70-30% sequence identity relative to the search structure (medium homologs). Very close homologs (above 70% sequence identity) are excluded as they rarely have marked structural differences. The alignments of remote homologs are the result of pairwise all-against-all structural comparisons in the set of 330 representative protein chains. All such comparisons are based purely on the 3D co-ordinates of the proteins and are derived by automatic (objective) structure comparison programs. The significance of structural similarity is estimated based on statistical criteria. The FSSP database is available electronically from the EMBL file server and by anonymous ftp (file transfer protocol).     

A benchmark testing ground for integrating homology modeling and protein docking

Protein docking procedures carry out the task of predicting the structure of a protein–protein complex starting from the known structures of the individual protein components. More often than not, however, the structure of one or both components is not known, but can be derived by homology modeling on the basis of known structures of related proteins deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Thus, the problem is to develop methods that optimally integrate homology modeling and docking with the goal of predicting the structure of a complex directly from the amino acid sequences of its component proteins. One possibility is to use the best available homology modeling and docking methods. However, the models built for the individual subunits often differ to a significant degree from the bound conformation in the complex, often much more so than the differences observed between free and bound structures of the same protein, and therefore additional conformational adjustments, both at the backbone and side chain levels need to be modeled to achieve an accurate docking prediction. In particular, even homology models of overall good accuracy frequently include localized errors that unfavorably impact docking results. The predicted reliability of the different regions in the model can also serve as a useful input for the docking calculations. Here we present a benchmark dataset that should help to explore and solve combined modeling and docking problems. This dataset comprises a subset of the experimentally solved ‘target’ complexes from the widely used Docking Benchmark from the Weng Lab (excluding antibody–antigen complexes). This subset is extended to include the structures from the PDB related to those of the individual components of each complex, and hence represent potential templates for investigating and benchmarking integrated homology modeling and docking approaches. Template sets can be dynamically customized by specifying ranges in sequence similarity and in PDB release dates, or using other filtering options, such as excluding sets of specific structures from the template list. Multiple sequence alignments, as well as structural alignments of the templates to their corresponding subunits in the target are also provided. The resource is accessible online or can be downloaded at http://cluspro.org/benchmark , and is updated on a weekly basis in synchrony with new PDB releases. Proteins 2016; 85:10–16. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Alternative alignments from comparison of protein structures

Comparison of two protein structures often results in not only a global alignment but also a number of distinct local alignments; the latter, referred to as alternative alignments, are however usually ignored in existing protein structure comparison analyses. Here, we used a novel method of protein structure comparison to extensively identify and characterize the alternative alignments obtained for structure pairs of a fold classification database. We showed that all alternative alignments can be classified into one of just a few types, and with which illustrated the potential of using alternative alignments to identify recurring protein substructures, including the internal structural repeats of a protein. Furthermore, we showed that among the alternative alignments obtained, permuted alignments, which included both circular and scrambled permutations, are as prevalent as topological alignments. These results demonstrated that the so far largely unattended alternative alignments of protein structures have implications and applications for research of protein classification and evolution.     

Comprehensive evaluation of protein structure alignment methods: scoring by geometric measures

We report the largest and most comprehensive comparison of protein structural alignment methods. Specifically, we evaluate six publicly available structure alignment programs: SSAP, STRUCTAL, DALI, LSQMAN, CE and SSM by aligning all 8,581,970 protein structure pairs in a test set of 2930 protein domains specially selected from CATH v.2.4 to ensure sequence diversity. We consider an alignment good if it matches many residues, and the two substructures are geometrically similar. Even with this definition, evaluating structural alignment methods is not straightforward. At first, we compared the rates of true and false positives using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with the CATH classification taken as a gold standard. This proved unsatisfactory in that the quality of the alignments is not taken into account: sometimes a method that finds less good alignments scores better than a method that finds better alignments. We correct this intrinsic limitation by using four different geometric match measures (SI, MI, SAS, and GSAS) to evaluate the quality of each structural alignment. With this improved analysis we show that there is a wide variation in the performance of different methods; the main reason for this is that it can be difficult to find a good structural alignment between two proteins even when such an alignment exists. We find that STRUCTAL and SSM perform best, followed by LSQMAN and CE. Our focus on the intrinsic quality of each alignment allows us to propose a new method, called "Best-of-All" that combines the best results of all methods. Many commonly used methods miss 10-50% of the good Best-of-All alignments. By putting existing structural alignments into proper perspective, our study allows better comparison of protein structures. By highlighting limitations of existing methods, it will spur the further development of better structural alignment methods. This will have significant biological implications now that structural comparison has come to play a central role in the analysis of experimental work on protein structure, protein function and protein evolution.     

Building multiple sequence alignments with a flavor of HSSP alignments

Homology-derived secondary structure of proteins (HSSP) is a well-known database of multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) which merges information of protein sequences and their three-dimensional structures. It is available for all proteins whose structure is deposited in the PDB. It is also used by STING and (Java)Protein Dossier to calculate and present relative entropy as a measure of the degree of conservation for each residue of proteins whose structure has been solved and deposited in the PDB. However, if the STING and (Java)Protein Dossier are to provide support for analysis of protein structures modeled in computers or being experimentally solved but not yet deposited in the PDB, then we need a new method for building alignments having a flavor of HSSP alignments (myMSAr). The present study describes a new method and its corresponding databank (SH2QS--database of sequences homologue to the query [structure-having] sequence). Our main interest in making myMSAr was to measure the degree of residue conservation for a given query sequence, regardless of whether it has a corresponding structure deposited in the PDB. In this study, we compare the measurement of residue conservation provided by corresponding alignments produced by HSSP and SH2QS. As a case study, we also present two biologically relevant examples, the first one highlighting the equivalence of analysis of the degree of residue conservation by using HSSP or SH2QS alignments, and the second one presenting the degree of residue conservation for a structure modeled in a computer, which , as a consequence, does not have an alignment reported by HSSP.