Protein homology detection by HMM-HMM comparison

MOTIVATION: Protein homology detection and sequence alignment are at the basis of protein structure prediction, function prediction and evolution. RESULTS: We have generalized the alignment of protein sequences with a profile hidden Markov model (HMM) to the case of pairwise alignment of profile HMMs. We present a method for detecting distant homologous relationships between proteins based on this approach. The method (HHsearch) is benchmarked together with BLAST, PSI-BLAST, HMMER and the profile-profile comparison tools PROF_SIM and COMPASS, in an all-against-all comparison of a database of 3691 protein domains from SCOP 1.63 with pairwise sequence identities below 20%.Sensitivity: When the predicted secondary structure is included in the HMMs, HHsearch is able to detect between 2.7 and 4.2 times more homologs than PSI-BLAST or HMMER and between 1.44 and 1.9 times more than COMPASS or PROF_SIM for a rate of false positives of 10%. Approximately half of the improvement over the profile-profile comparison methods is attributable to the use of profile HMMs in place of simple profiles. Alignment quality: Higher sensitivity is mirrored by an increased alignment quality. HHsearch produced 1.2, 1.7 and 3.3 times more good alignments ('balanced' score >0.3) than the next best method (COMPASS), and 1.6, 2.9 and 9.4 times more than PSI-BLAST, at the family, superfamily and fold level, respectively.Speed: HHsearch scans a query of 200 residues against 3691 domains in 33 s on an AMD64 2GHz PC. This is 10 times faster than PROF_SIM and 17 times faster than COMPASS.     

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.     

Detection of homologous proteins by an intermediate sequence search

We developed a variant of the intermediate sequence search method (ISS(new)) for detection and alignment of weakly similar pairs of protein sequences. ISS(new) relates two query sequences by an intermediate sequence that is potentially homologous to both queries. The improvement was achieved by a more robust overlap score for a match between the queries through an intermediate. The approach was benchmarked on a data set of 2369 sequences of known structure with insignificant sequence similarity to each other (BLAST E-value larger than 0.001); 2050 of these sequences had a related structure in the set. ISS(new) performed significantly better than both PSI-BLAST and a previously described intermediate sequence search method. PSI-BLAST could not detect correct homologs for 1619 of the 2369 sequences. In contrast, ISS(new) assigned a correct homolog as the top hit for 121 of these 1619 sequences, while incorrectly assigning homologs for only nine targets; it did not assign homologs for the remainder of the sequences. By estimate, ISS(new) may be able to assign the folds of domains in approximately 29,000 of the approximately 500,000 sequences unassigned by PSI-BLAST, with 90% specificity (1 - false positives fraction). In addition, we show that the 15 alignments with the most significant BLAST E-values include the nearly best alignments constructed by ISS(new).     

Iterative sequence/secondary structure search for protein homologs: comparison with amino acid sequence alignments and application to fold recognition in genome databases

MOTIVATION: Sequence alignment techniques have been developed into extremely powerful tools for identifying the folding families and function of proteins in newly sequenced genomes. For a sufficiently low sequence identity it is necessary to incorporate additional structural information to positively detect homologous proteins. We have carried out an extensive analysis of the effectiveness of incorporating secondary structure information directly into the alignments for fold recognition and identification of distant protein homologs. A secondary structure similarity matrix based on a database of three-dimensionally aligned proteins was first constructed. An iterative application of dynamic programming was used which incorporates linear combinations of amino acid and secondary structure sequence similarity scores. Initially, only primary sequence information is used. Subsequently contributions from secondary structure are phased in and new homologous proteins are positively identified if their scores are consistent with the predetermined error rate. RESULTS: We used the SCOP40 database, where only PDB sequences that have 40% homology or less are included, to calibrate homology detection by the combined amino acid and secondary structure sequence alignments. Combining predicted secondary structure with sequence information results in a 8-15% increase in homology detection within SCOP40 relative to the pairwise alignments using only amino acid sequence data at an error rate of 0.01 errors per query; a 35% increase is observed when the actual secondary structure sequences are used. Incorporating predicted secondary structure information in the analysis of six small genomes yields an improvement in the homology detection of approximately 20% over SSEARCH pairwise alignments, but no improvement in the total number of homologs detected over PSI-BLAST, at an error rate of 0.01 errors per query. However, because the pairwise alignments based on combinations of amino acid and secondary structure similarity are different from those produced by PSI-BLAST and the error rates can be calibrated, it is possible to combine the results of both searches. An additional 25% relative improvement in the number of genes identified at an error rate of 0.01 is observed when the data is pooled in this way. Similarly for the SCOP40 dataset, PSI-BLAST detected 15% of all possible homologs, whereas the pooled results increased the total number of homologs detected to 19%. These results are compared with recent reports of homology detection using sequence profiling methods. AVAILABILITY: Secondary structure alignment homepage at http://lutece.rutgers.edu/ssas CONTACT: anders@rutchem.rutgers.edu; ronlevy@lutece.rutgers.edu Supplementary Information: Genome sequence/structure alignment results at http://lutece.rutgers.edu/ss_fold_predictions.     

What are the baselines for protein fold recognition?

MOTIVATION: What constitutes a baseline level of success for protein fold recognition methods? As fold recognition benchmarks are often presented without any thought to the results that might be expected from a purely random set of predictions, an analysis of fold recognition baselines is long overdue. Given varying amounts of basic information about a protein-ranging from the length of the sequence to a knowledge of its secondary structure-to what extent can the fold be determined by intelligent guesswork? Can simple methods that make use of secondary structure information assign folds more accurately than purely random methods and could these methods be used to construct viable hierarchical classifications? EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED: A number of rapid automatic methods which score similarities between protein domains were devised and tested. These methods ranged from those that incorporated no secondary structure information, such as measuring absolute differences in sequence lengths, to more complex alignments of secondary structure elements. Each method was assessed for accuracy by comparison with the Class Architecture Topology Homology (CATH) classification. Methods were rated against both a random baseline fold assignment method as a lower control and FSSP as an upper control. Similarity trees were constructed in order to evaluate the accuracy of optimum methods at producing a classification of structure. RESULTS: Using a rigorous comparison of methods with CATH, the random fold assignment method set a lower baseline of 11% true positives allowing for 3% false positives and FSSP set an upper benchmark of 47% true positives at 3% false positives. The optimum secondary structure alignment method used here achieved 27% true positives at 3% false positives. Using a less rigorous Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP)-like sensitivity measurement the random assignment achieved 6%, FSSP-59% and the optimum secondary structure alignment method-32%. Similarity trees produced by the optimum method illustrate that these methods cannot be used alone to produce a viable protein structural classification system. CONCLUSIONS: Simple methods that use perfect secondary structure information to assign folds cannot produce an accurate protein taxonomy, however they do provide useful baselines for fold recognition. In terms of a typical CASP assessment our results suggest that approximately 6% of targets with folds in the databases could be assigned correctly by randomly guessing, and as many as 32% could be recognised by trivial secondary structure comparison methods, given knowledge of their correct secondary structures.     

Improvement of the GenTHREADER method for genomic fold recognition

MOTIVATION: In order to enhance genome annotation, the fully automatic fold recognition method GenTHREADER has been improved and benchmarked. The previous version of GenTHREADER consisted of a simple neural network which was trained to combine sequence alignment score, length information and energy potentials derived from threading into a single score representing the relationship between two proteins, as designated by CATH. The improved version incorporates PSI-BLAST searches, which have been jumpstarted with structural alignment profiles from FSSP, and now also makes use of PSIPRED predicted secondary structure and bi-directional scoring in order to calculate the final alignment score. Pairwise potentials and solvation potentials are calculated from the given sequence alignment which are then used as inputs to a multi-layer, feed-forward neural network, along with the alignment score, alignment length and sequence length. The neural network has also been expanded to accommodate the secondary structure element alignment (SSEA) score as an extra input and it is now trained to learn the FSSP Z-score as a measurement of similarity between two proteins. RESULTS: The improvements made to GenTHREADER increase the number of remote homologues that can be detected with a low error rate, implying higher reliability of score, whilst also increasing the quality of the models produced. We find that up to five times as many true positives can be detected with low error rate per query. Total MaxSub score is doubled at low false positive rates using the improved method. AVAILABILITY: http://www.psipred.net.     

The CATH extended protein-family database: providing structural annotations for genome sequences.

An automatic sequence search and analysis protocol (DomainFinder) based on PSI-BLAST and IMPALA, and using conservative thresholds, has been developed for reliably integrating gene sequences from GenBank into their respective structural families within the CATH domain database (http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/cath_new). DomainFinder assigns a new gene sequence to a CATH homologous superfamily provided that PSI-BLAST identifies a clear relationship to at least one other Protein Data Bank sequence within that superfamily. This has resulted in an expansion of the CATH protein family database (CATH-PFDB v1.6) from 19,563 domain structures to 176,597 domain sequences. A further 50,000 putative homologous relationships can be identified using less stringent cut-offs and these relationships are maintained within neighbour tables in the CATH Oracle database, pending further evidence of their suggested evolutionary relationship. Analysis of the CATH-PFDB has shown that only 15% of the sequence families are close enough to a known structure for reliable homology modeling. IMPALA/PSI-BLAST profiles have been generated for each of the sequence families in the expanded CATH-PFDB and a web server has been provided so that new sequences may be scanned against the profile library and be assigned to a structure and homologous superfamily.     

Assessing strategies for improved superfamily recognition

There are more than 200 completed genomes and over 1 million nonredundant sequences in public repositories. Although the structural data are more sparse (approximately 13,000 nonredundant structures solved to date), several powerful sequence-based methodologies now allow these structures to be mapped onto related regions in a significant proportion of genome sequences. We review a number of publicly available strategies for providing structural annotations for genome sequences, and we describe the protocol adopted to provide CATH structural annotations for completed genomes. In particular, we assess the performance of several sequence-based protocols employing Hidden Markov model (HMM) technologies for superfamily recognition, including a new approach (SAMOSA [sequence augmented models of structure alignments]) that exploits multiple structural alignments from the CATH domain structure database when building the models. Using a data set of remote homologs detected by structure comparison and manually validated in CATH, a single-seed HMM library was able to recognize 76% of the data set. Including the SAMOSA models in the HMM library showed little gain in homolog recognition, although a slight improvement in alignment quality was observed for very remote homologs. However, using an expanded 1D-HMM library, CATH-ISL increased the coverage to 86%. The single-seed HMM library has been used to annotate the protein sequences of 120 genomes from all three major kingdoms, allowing up to 70% of the genes or partial genes to be assigned to CATH superfamilies. It has also been used to recruit sequences from Swiss-Prot and TrEMBL into CATH domain superfamilies, expanding the CATH database eightfold.     

Large-scale comparison of protein sequence alignment algorithms with structure alignments

Sequence alignment programs such as BLAST and PSI-BLAST are used routinely in pairwise, profile-based, or intermediate-sequence-search (ISS) methods to detect remote homologies for the purposes of fold assignment and comparative modeling. Yet, the sequence alignment quality of these methods at low sequence identity is not known. We have used the CE structure alignment program (Shindyalov and Bourne, Prot Eng 1998;11:739) to derive sequence alignments for all superfamily and family-level related proteins in the SCOP domain database. CE aligns structures and their sequences based on distances within each protein, rather than on interprotein distances. We compared BLAST, PSI-BLAST, CLUSTALW, and ISS alignments with the CE structural alignments. We found that global alignments with CLUSTALW were very poor at low sequence identity (<25%), as judged by the CE alignments. We used PSI-BLAST to search the nonredundant sequence database (nr) with every sequence in SCOP using up to four iterations. The resulting matrix was used to search a database of SCOP sequences. PSI-BLAST is only slightly better than BLAST in alignment accuracy on a per-residue basis, but PSI-BLAST matrix alignments are much longer than BLAST's, and so align correctly a larger fraction of the total number of aligned residues in the structure alignments. Any two SCOP sequences in the same superfamily that shared a hit or hits in the nr PSI-BLAST searches were identified as linked by the shared intermediate sequence. We examined the quality of the longest SCOP-query/ SCOP-hit alignment via an intermediate sequence, and found that ISS produced longer alignments than PSI-BLAST searches alone, of nearly comparable per-residue quality. At 10-15% sequence identity, BLAST correctly aligns 28%, PSI-BLAST 40%, and ISS 46% of residues according to the structure alignments. We also compared CE structure alignments with FSSP structure alignments generated by the DALI program. In contrast to the sequence methods, CE and structure alignments from the FSSP database identically align 75% of residue pairs at the 10-15% level of sequence identity, indicating that there is substantial room for improvement in these sequence alignment methods. BLAST produced alignments for 8% of the 10,665 nonimmunoglobulin SCOP superfamily sequence pairs (nearly all <25% sequence identity), PSI-BLAST matched 17% and the double-PSI-BLAST ISS method aligned 38% with E-values <10.0. The results indicate that intermediate sequences may be useful not only in fold assignment but also in achieving more complete sequence alignments for comparative modeling.     

Local structure-based sequence profile database for local and global protein structure predictions

MOTIVATION: A large body of evidence suggests that protein structural information is frequently encoded in local sequences-sequence-structure relationships derived from local structure/sequence analyses could significantly enhance the capacities of protein structure prediction methods. In this paper, the prediction capacity of a database (LSBSP2) that organizes local sequence-structure relationships encoded in local structures with two consecutive secondary structure elements is tested with two computational procedures for protein structure prediction. The goal is twofold: to test the folding hypothesis that local structures are determined by local sequences, and to enhance our capacity in predicting protein structures from their amino acid sequences. RESULTS: The LSBSP2 database contains a large set of sequence profiles derived from exhaustive pair-wise structural alignments for local structures with two consecutive secondary structure elements. One computational procedure makes use of the PSI-BLAST alignment program to predict local structures for testing sequence fragments by matching the testing sequence fragments onto the sequence profiles in the LSBSP2 database. The results show that 54% of the test sequence fragments were predicted with local structures that match closely with their native local structures. The other computational procedure is a filter system that is capable of removing false positives as possible from a set of PSI-BLAST hits. An assessment with a large set of non-redundant protein structures shows that the PSI-BLAST + filter system improves the prediction specificity by up to two-fold over the prediction specificity of the PSI-BLAST program for distantly related protein pairs. Tests with the two computational procedures above demonstrate that local sequence-structure relationships can indeed enhance our capacity in protein structure prediction. The results also indicate that local sequences encoded with strong local structure propensities play an important role in determining the native state folding topology.     

CATHEDRAL: a fast and effective algorithm to predict folds and domain boundaries from multidomain protein structures

We present CATHEDRAL, an iterative protocol for determining the location of previously observed protein folds in novel multidomain protein structures. CATHEDRAL builds on the features of a fast secondary-structure-based method (using graph theory) to locate known folds within a multidomain context and a residue-based, double-dynamic programming algorithm, which is used to align members of the target fold groups against the query protein structure to identify the closest relative and assign domain boundaries. To increase the fidelity of the assignments, a support vector machine is used to provide an optimal scoring scheme. Once a domain is verified, it is excised, and the search protocol is repeated in an iterative fashion until all recognisable domains have been identified. We have performed an initial benchmark of CATHEDRAL against other publicly available structure comparison methods using a consensus dataset of domains derived from the CATH and SCOP domain classifications. CATHEDRAL shows superior performance in fold recognition and alignment accuracy when compared with many equivalent methods. If a novel multidomain structure contains a known fold, CATHEDRAL will locate it in 90% of cases, with <1% false positives. For nearly 80% of assigned domains in a manually validated test set, the boundaries were correctly delineated within a tolerance of ten residues. For the remaining cases, previously classified domains were very remotely related to the query chain so that embellishments to the core of the fold caused significant differences in domain sizes and manual refinement of the boundaries was necessary. To put this performance in context, a well-established sequence method based on hidden Markov models was only able to detect 65% of domains, with 33% of the subsequent boundaries assigned within ten residues. Since, on average, 50% of newly determined protein structures contain more than one domain unit, and typically 90% or more of these domains are already classified in CATH, CATHEDRAL will considerably facilitate the automation of protein structure classification.     

ASH structure alignment package: Sensitivity and selectivity in domain classification

Background  

Structure alignment methods offer the possibility of measuring distant evolutionary relationships between proteins that are not visible by sequence-based analysis. However, the question of how structural differences and similarities ought to be quantified in this regard remains open. In this study we construct a training set of sequence-unique CATH and SCOP domains, from which we develop a scoring function that can reliably identify domains with the same CATH topology and SCOP fold classification. The score is implemented in the ASH structure alignment package, for which the source code and a web service are freely available from the PDBj website .     

Fast assignment of protein structures to sequences using the intermediate sequence library PDB-ISL

MOTIVATION: For large-scale structural assignment to sequences, as in computational structural genomics, a fast yet sensitive sequence search procedure is essential. A new approach using intermediate sequences was tested as a shortcut to iterative multiple sequence search methods such as PSI-BLAST. RESULTS: A library containing potential intermediate sequences for proteins of known structure (PDB-ISL) was constructed. The sequences in the library were collected from a large sequence database using the sequences of the domains of proteins of known structure as the query sequences and the program PSI-BLAST. Sequences of proteins of unknown structure can be matched to distantly related proteins of known structure by using pairwise sequence comparison methods to find homologues in PDB-ISL. Searches of PDB-ISL were calibrated, and the number of correct matches found at a given error rate was the same as that found by PSI-BLAST. The advantage of this library is that it uses pairwise sequence comparison methods, such as FASTA or BLAST2, and can, therefore, be searched easily and, in many cases, much more quickly than an iterative multiple sequence comparison method. The procedure is roughly 20 times faster than PSI-BLAST for small genomes and several hundred times for large genomes. AVAILABILITY: Sequences can be submitted to the PDB-ISL servers at http://stash.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/PDB_ISL/ or http://cyrah.ebi.ac.uk:1111/Serv/PDB_ISL/ and can be downloaded from ftp://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/contrib/jong/PDB_+ ++ISL/ CONTACT: sat@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk and jong@ebi.ac.uk     

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.     

Four-helix bundle: a ubiquitous sensory module in prokaryotic signal transduction

MOTIVATION: Transmembrane chemoreceptors in Escherichia coli utilize ligand-binding domains for detecting various external signals. The structure of this domain in the E.coli aspartate receptor, Tar, is known and its signal transduction mechanism is under investigation. Current domain models for this important sensory module are inaccurate and, therefore, cannot reveal the distribution of this domain within the current genomic landscape. RESULTS: We carried out sensitive and exhaustive PSI-BLAST searches initiated with the sequence corresponding to a known structure of the four-helix, ligand-binding domain of the aspartate chemoreceptor. From the resulting sequences, we built a multiple sequence alignment for this domain family, which confirmed that the current TarH model is erroneous and fails to detect most of the domain homologs. In the process, we developed a technique that visualizes the secondary structure prediction of each protein sequence in order to improve the multiple sequence alignment. We found that the four-helix up-and-down bundle represents a large domain family and includes representatives of all major classes of prokaryotic signal transduction, namely histidine kinases, di-guanylate cyclases and chemotaxis receptors.     

Quality of alignment comparison by COMPASS improves with inclusion of diverse confident homologs

MOTIVATION: Adding more distant homologs to a multiple alignment and thus increasing its diversity may eventually deteriorate the numerical profile constructed from this alignment. Here, we addressed the question whether such a diversity limit can be reached in the alignments of confident homologs found by PSI-BLAST, and we analyzed the dependence of the quality of the profile-profile comparison made by COMPASS on the sequence diversity within these alignments. RESULTS: Protein families that have a greater number of diverse confident homologs in the current sequence databases provide an increased quality of similarity detection in profile databases, but produce on average less accurate profile-profile alignments with their remote relatives. This lower alignment accuracy cannot be improved when the most distant members of these families are excluded from their profiles. On the contrary, the presence of more diverse members results in more accurate alignments. For families with a high diversity of confident homologs, the lower quality of profile alignments with their remote relatives seems to be an attribute of these families or their alignments, rather than to be caused by the large number of diverse sequences itself. Our results suggest that at any level of profile diversity, one should include in the multiple alignment as many confident sequence homologs as possible in order to produce the most accurate results.     

Use of residue pairs in protein sequence-sequence and sequence-structure alignments

Two new sets of scoring matrices are introduced: H2 for the protein sequence comparison and T2 for the protein sequence-structure correlation. Each element of H2 or T2 measures the frequency with which a pair of amino acid types in one protein, k-residues apart in the sequence, is aligned with another pair of residues, of given amino acid types (for H2) or in given structural states (for T2), in other structurally homologous proteins. There are four types, corresponding to the k-values of 1 to 4, for both H2 and T2. These matrices were set up using a large number of structurally homologous protein pairs, with little sequence homology between the pair, that were recently generated using the structure comparison program SHEBA. The two scoring matrices were incorporated into the main body of the sequence alignment program SSEARCH in the FASTA package and tested in a fold recognition setting in which a set of 107 test sequences were aligned to each of a panel of 3,539 domains that represent all known protein structures. Six procedures were tested; the straight Smith-Waterman (SW) and FASTA procedures, which used the Blosum62 single residue type substitution matrix; BLAST and PSI-BLAST procedures, which also used the Blosum62 matrix; PASH, which used Blosum62 and H2 matrices; and PASSC, which used Blosum62, H2, and T2 matrices. All procedures gave similar results when the probe and target sequences had greater than 30% sequence identity. However, when the sequence identity was below 30%, a similar structure could be found for more sequences using PASSC than using any other procedure. PASH and PSI-BLAST gave the next best results.     

Fold homology detection using sequence fragment composition profiles of proteins

The effectiveness of sequence alignment in detecting structural homology among protein sequences decreases markedly when pairwise sequence identity is low (the so‐called “twilight zone” problem of sequence alignment). Alternative sequence comparison strategies able to detect structural kinship among highly divergent sequences are necessary to address this need. Among them are alignment‐free methods, which use global sequence properties (such as amino acid composition) to identify structural homology in a rapid and straightforward way. We explore the viability of using tetramer sequence fragment composition profiles in finding structural relationships that lie undetected by traditional alignment. We establish a strategy to recast any given protein sequence into a tetramer sequence fragment composition profile, using a series of amino acid clustering steps that have been optimized for mutual information. Our method has the effect of compressing the set of 160,000 unique tetramers (if using the 20‐letter amino acid alphabet) into a more tractable number of reduced tetramers (～15–30), so that a meaningful tetramer composition profile can be constructed. We test remote homology detection at the topology and fold superfamily levels using a comprehensive set of fold homologs, culled from the CATH database that share low pairwise sequence similarity. Using the receiver‐operating characteristic measure, we demonstrate potentially significant improvement in using information‐optimized reduced tetramer composition, over methods relying only on the raw amino acid composition or on traditional sequence alignment, in homology detection at or below the “twilight zone”. Proteins 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Evaluation of PSI-BLAST alignment accuracy in comparison to structural alignments

The PSI-BLAST algorithm has been acknowledged as one of the most powerful tools for detecting remote evolutionary relationships by sequence considerations only. This has been demonstrated by its ability to recognize remote structural homologues and by the greatest coverage it enables in annotation of a complete genome. Although recognizing the correct fold of a sequence is of major importance, the accuracy of the alignment is crucial for the success of modeling one sequence by the structure of its remote homologue. Here we assess the accuracy of PSI-BLAST alignments on a stringent database of 123 structurally similar, sequence-dissimilar pairs of proteins, by comparing them to the alignments defined on a structural basis. Each protein sequence is compared to a nonredundant database of the protein sequences by PSI-BLAST. Whenever a pair member detects its pair-mate, the positions that are aligned both in the sequential and structural alignments are determined, and the alignment sensitivity is expressed as the percentage of these positions out of the structural alignment. Fifty-two sequences detected their pair-mates (for 16 pairs the success was bi-directional when either pair member was used as a query). The average percentage of correctly aligned residues per structural alignment was 43.5+/-2.2%. Other properties of the alignments were also examined, such as the sensitivity vs. specificity and the change in these parameters over consecutive iterations. Notably, there is an improvement in alignment sensitivity over consecutive iterations, reaching an average of 50.9+/-2.5% within the five iterations tested in the current study.     

Multiple structure alignment with msTALI

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Multiple structure alignments have received increasing attention in recent years as an alternative to multiple sequence alignments. Although multiple structure alignment algorithms can potentially be applied to a number of problems, they have primarily been used for protein core identification. A method that is capable of solving a variety of problems using structure comparison is still absent. Here we introduce a program msTALI for aligning multiple protein structures. Our algorithm uses several informative features to guide its alignments: torsion angles, backbone Calpha atom positions, secondary structure, residue type, surface accessibility, and properties of nearby atoms. The algorithm allows the user to weight the types of information used to generate the alignment, which expands its utility to a wide variety of problems. RESULTS: msTALI exhibits competitive results on 824 families from the Homstrad and SABmark databases when compared to Matt and Mustang. We also demonstrate success at building a database of protein cores using 341 randomly selected CATH domains and highlight the contribution of msTALI compared to the CATH classifications. Finally, we present an example applying msTALI to the problem of detecting hinges in a protein undergoing rigid-body motion. CONCLUSIONS: msTALI is an effective algorithm for multiple structure alignment. In addition to its performance on standard comparison databases, it utilizes clear, informative features, allowing further customization for domain-specific applications. The C++ source code for msTALI is available for Linux on the web at http://ifestos.cse.sc.edu/mstali.