Structure-Based Phylogeny as a Diagnostic for Functional Characterization of Proteins with a Cupin Fold

Background

The members of cupin superfamily exhibit large variations in their sequences, functions, organization of domains, quaternary associations and the nature of bound metal ion, despite having a conserved β-barrel structural scaffold. Here, an attempt has been made to understand structure-function relationships among the members of this diverse superfamily and identify the principles governing functional diversity. The cupin superfamily also contains proteins for which the structures are available through world-wide structural genomics initiatives but characterized as “hypothetical”. We have explored the feasibility of obtaining clues to functions of such proteins by means of comparative analysis with cupins of known structure and function.

Methodology/Principal Findings

A 3-D structure-based phylogenetic approach was undertaken. Interestingly, a dendrogram generated solely on the basis of structural dissimilarity measure at the level of domain folds was found to cluster functionally similar members. This clustering also reflects an independent evolution of the two domains in bicupins. Close examination of structural superposition of members across various functional clusters reveals structural variations in regions that not only form the active site pocket but are also involved in interaction with another domain in the same polypeptide or in the oligomer.

Conclusions/Significance

Structure-based phylogeny of cupins can influence identification of functions of proteins of yet unknown function with cupin fold. This approach can be extended to other proteins with a common fold that show high evolutionary divergence. This approach is expected to have an influence on the function annotation in structural genomics initiatives.     

Predicting fold novelty based on ProtoNet hierarchical classification

MOTIVATION: Structural genomics projects aim to solve a large number of protein structures with the ultimate objective of representing the entire protein space. The computational challenge is to identify and prioritize a small set of proteins with new, currently unknown, superfamilies or folds. RESULTS: We develop a method that assigns each protein a likelihood of it belonging to a new, yet undetermined, structural superfamily. The method relies on a variant of ProtoNet, an automatic hierarchical classification scheme of all protein sequences from SwissProt. Our results show that proteins that are remote from solved structures in the ProtoNet hierarchy are more likely to belong to new superfamilies. The results are validated against SCOP releases from recent years that account for about half of the solved structures known to date. We show that our new method and the representation of ProtoNet are superior in detecting new targets, compared to our previous method using ProtoMap classification. Furthermore, our method outperforms PSI-BLAST search in detecting potential new superfamilies.     

Selecting targets for structural determination by navigating in a graph of protein families

MOTIVATION: A major goal in structural genomics is to enrich the catalogue of proteins whose 3D structures are known. In an attempt to address this problem we mapped over 10 000 proteins with solved structures onto a graph of all Swissprot protein sequences (release 36, approximately 73 000 proteins) provided by ProtoMap, with the goal of sorting proteins according to their likelihood of belonging to new superfamilies. We hypothesized that proteins within neighbouring clusters tend to share common structural superfamilies or folds. If true, the likelihood of finding new superfamilies increases in clusters that are distal from other solved structures within the graph. RESULTS: We defined an order relation between unsolved proteins according to their 'distance' from solved structures in the graph, and sorted approximately 48 000 proteins. Our list can be partitioned into three groups: approximately 35 000 proteins sharing a cluster with at least one known structure; approximately 6500 proteins in clusters with no solved structure but with neighbouring clusters containing known structures; and a third group contains the rest of the proteins, approximately 6100 (in 1274 clusters). We tested the quality of the order relation using thousands of recently solved structures that were not included when the order was defined. The tests show that our order is significantly better (P-value approximately 10(5)) than a random order. More interestingly, the order within the union of the second and third groups, and the order within the third group alone, perform better than random (P-values: 0.0008 and 0.15, respectively) and are better than alternative orders created using PSI-BLAST. Herein, we present a method for selecting targets to be used in structural genomics projects. AVAILABILITY: List of proteins to be used for targets selection combined with a set of biological filters for narrowing down potential targets is in http://www.protarget.cs.huji.ac.il.     

SUPFAM—a database of potential protein superfamily relationships derived by comparing sequence-based and structure-based families: implications for structural genomics and function annotation in genomes

Members of a superfamily of proteins could result from divergent evolution of homologues with insignificant similarity in the amino acid sequences. A superfamily relationship is detected commonly after the three-dimensional structures of the proteins are determined using X-ray analysis or NMR. The SUPFAM database described here relates two homologous protein families in a multiple sequence alignment database of either known or unknown structure. The present release (1.1), which is the first version of the SUPFAM database, has been derived by analysing Pfam, which is one of the commonly used databases of multiple sequence alignments of homologous proteins. The first step in establishing SUPFAM is to relate Pfam families with the families in PALI, which is an alignment database of homologous proteins of known structure that is derived largely from SCOP. The second step involves relating Pfam families which could not be associated reliably with a protein superfamily of known structure. The profile matching procedure, IMPALA, has been used in these steps. The first step resulted in identification of 1280 Pfam families (out of 2697, i.e. 47%) which are related, either by close homologous connection to a SCOP family or by distant relationship to a SCOP family, potentially forming new superfamily connections. Using the profiles of 1417 Pfam families with apparently no structural information, an all-against-all comparison involving a sequence-profile match using IMPALA resulted in clustering of 67 homologous protein families of Pfam into 28 potential new superfamilies. Expansion of groups of related proteins of yet unknown structural information, as proposed in SUPFAM, should help in identifying ‘priority proteins’ for structure determination in structural genomics initiatives to expand the coverage of structural information in the protein sequence space. For example, we could assign 858 distinct Pfam domains in 2203 of the gene products in the genome of Mycobacterium tubercolosis. Fifty-one of these Pfam families of unknown structure could be clustered into 17 potentially new superfamilies forming good targets for structural genomics. SUPFAM database can be accessed at http://pauling.mbu.iisc.ernet.in/~supfam.     

A comparison of sequence and structure protein domain families as a basis for structural genomics.

MOTIVATION: Protein families can be defined based on structure or sequence similarity. We wanted to compare two protein family databases, one based on structural and one on sequence similarity, to investigate to what extent they overlap, the similarity in definition of corresponding families, and to create a list of large protein families with unknown structure as a resource for structural genomics. We also wanted to increase the sensitivity of fold assignment by exploiting protein family HMMs. RESULTS: We compared Pfam, a protein family database based on sequence similarity, to Scop, which is based on structural similarity. We found that 70% of the Scop families exist in Pfam while 57% of the Pfam families exist in Scop. Most families that occur in both databases correspond well to each other, but in some cases they are different. Such cases highlight situations in which structure and sequence approaches differ significantly. The comparison enabled us to compile a list of the largest families that do not occur in Scop; these are suitable targets for structure prediction and determination, and may be useful to guide projects in structural genomics. It can be noted that 13 out of the 20 largest protein families without a known structure are likely transmembrane proteins. We also exploited Pfam to increase the sensitivity of detecting homologs of proteins with known structure, by comparing query sequences to Pfam HMMs that correspond to Scop families. For SWISSPROT+TREMBL, this yielded an increase in fold assignment from 31% to 42% compared to using FASTA only. This method assigned a structure to 22% of the proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 24% in Escherichia coli, and 16% in Methanococcus jannaschii.     

Target space for structural genomics revisited

MOTIVATION: Structural genomics eventually aims at determining structures for all proteins. However, in the beginning experimentalists are likely to focus on globular proteins to achieve a rapid basic coverage of protein sequence space. How many proteins will structural genomics have to target? How many proteins will be excluded since we already have structural information for these or since they are not globular? We have to answer these questions in the context of our target selection for the North-East Structural Genomics Consortium (NESG). RESULTS: We estimated that structural information is available for about 6-38% of all proteins; 6% if we require high accuracy in comparative modelling, 38% if we are satisfied with having a rough idea about the fold. Excluding all regions that are not globular, we found that structural genomics may have to target about 48% of all proteins. This corresponded to a similar percentage of residues of the entire proteomes (52%). We explored a number of different strategies to cluster protein space in order to find the number of families representing these 48% of structurally unknown proteins. For the subset of all entirely sequenced eukaryotes, we found over 18 000 fragment clusters each of which may be a suitable target for structural genomics. AVAILABILITY: All data are available from the authors, most results are summarized at: http://cubic.bioc.columbia.edu/genomes/RES/2002_bioinformatics/     

Expectations from structural genomics

Structural genomics projects aim to provide an experimental structure or a good model for every protein in all completed genomes. Most of the experimental work for these projects will be directed toward proteins whose fold cannot be readily recognized by simple sequence comparison with proteins of known structure. Based on the history of proteins classified in the SCOP structure database, we expect that only about a quarter of the early structural genomics targets will have a new fold. Among the remaining ones, about half are likely to be evolutionarily related to proteins of known structure, even though the homology could not be readily detected by sequence analysis.     

Targeting novel folds for structural genomics

The ultimate goal of structural genomics is to obtain the structure of each protein coded by each gene within a genome to determine gene function. Because of cost and time limitations, it remains impractical to solve the structure for every gene product experimentally. Up to a point, reasonably accurate three‐dimensional structures can be deduced for proteins with homologous sequences by using comparative modeling. Beyond this, fold recognition or threading methods can be used for proteins showing little homology to any known fold, although this is relatively time‐consuming and limited by the library of template folds currently available. Therefore, it is appropriate to develop methods that can increase our knowledge base, expanding our fold libraries by earmarking potentially “novel” folds for experimental structure determination. How can we sift through proteomic data rapidly and yet reliably identify novel folds as targets for structural genomics? We have analyzed a number of simple methods that discriminate between “novel” and “known” folds. We propose that simple alignments of secondary structure elements using predicted secondary structure could potentially be a more selective method than both a simple fold recognition method (GenTHREADER) and standard sequence alignment at finding novel folds when sequences show no detectable homology to proteins with known structures. Proteins 2002;48:44–52. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Target selection and determination of function in structural genomics

The first crucial step in any structural genomics project is the selection and prioritization of target proteins for structure determination. There may be a number of selection criteria to be satisfied, including that the proteins have novel folds, that they be representatives of large families for which no structure is known, and so on. The better the selection at this stage, the greater is the value of the structures obtained at the end of the experimental process. This value can be further enhanced once the protein structures have been solved if the functions of the given proteins can also be determined. Here we describe the methods used at either end of the experimental process: firstly, sensitive sequence comparison techniques for selecting a high-quality list of target proteins, and secondly the various computational methods that can be applied to the eventual 3D structures to determine the most likely biochemical function of the proteins in question.     

Functional classification of protein 3D structures from predicted local interaction sites

A new approach to the functional classification of protein 3D structures is described with application to some examples from structural genomics. This approach is based on functional site prediction with THEMATICS and POOL. THEMATICS employs calculated electrostatic potentials of the query structure. POOL is a machine learning method that utilizes THEMATICS features and has been shown to predict accurate, precise, highly localized interaction sites. Extension to the functional classification of structural genomics proteins is now described. Predicted functionally important residues are structurally aligned with those of proteins with previously characterized biochemical functions. A 3D structure match at the predicted local functional site then serves as a more reliable predictor of biochemical function than an overall structure match. Annotation is confirmed for a structural genomics protein with the ribulose phosphate binding barrel (RPBB) fold. A putative glucoamylase from Bacteroides fragilis (PDB ID 3eu8) is shown to be in fact probably not a glucoamylase. Finally a structural genomics protein from Streptomyces coelicolor annotated as an enoyl-CoA hydratase (PDB ID 3g64) is shown to be misannotated. Its predicted active site does not match the well-characterized enoyl-CoA hydratases of similar structure but rather bears closer resemblance to those of a dehalogenase with similar fold.     

More for less in structural genomics

Structural genomics is the idea of covering protein space so that every protein sequence comes within model building distance of a protein of known structure. Unfortunately, reproducing the structural alignment of distantly related proteins is a difficult challenge to existing sequence alignment and motif search software. We have developed a new transitive alignment algorithm (MaxFlow), which generates accurate alignments between proteins deep in the twilight zone of sequence similarity, below 20% sequence identity. In particular, MaxFlow reliably identifies conserved core motifs between proteins which are only indirect PSI-Blast neighbours. Based on MaxFlow alignments, useful 3D models can be generated for all members of a superfamily from as few as a single structural template – despite hundreds of representatives at 40% sequence identity level and patchy detection of homology by PSI-Blast. We propose novel strategies for target prioritization using MaxFlow scores to predict the optimal templates in a superfamily. Our results support an increase in the granularity of covering protein space that has potentially enormous economic implications for planning the transition to the full production phase of structural genomics.     

Annotating nucleic acid-binding function based on protein structure

Many of the targets of structural genomics will be proteins with little or no structural similarity to those currently in the database. Therefore, novel function prediction methods that do not rely on sequence or fold similarity to other known proteins are needed. We present an automated approach to predict nucleic-acid-binding (NA-binding) proteins, specifically DNA-binding proteins. The method is based on characterizing the structural and sequence properties of large, positively charged electrostatic patches on DNA-binding protein surfaces, which typically coincide with the DNA-binding-sites. Using an ensemble of features extracted from these electrostatic patches, we predict DNA-binding proteins with high accuracy. We show that our method does not rely on sequence or structure homology and is capable of predicting proteins of novel-binding motifs and protein structures solved in an unbound state. Our method can also distinguish NA-binding proteins from other proteins that have similar, large positive electrostatic patches on their surfaces, but that do not bind nucleic acids.     

Functional differentiation of proteins: implications for structural genomics

Structural genomics is a broad initiative of various centers aiming to provide complete coverage of protein structure space. Because it is not feasible to experimentally determine the structures of all proteins, it is generally agreed that the only viable strategy to achieve such coverage is to carefully select specific proteins (targets), determine their structure experimentally, and then use comparative modeling techniques to model the rest. Here we suggest that structural genomics centers refine the structure-driven approach in target selection by adopting function-based criteria. We suggest targeting functionally divergent superfamilies within a given structural fold so that each function receives a structural characterization. We have developed a method to do so, and an itemized survey of several functionally rich folds shows that they are only partially functionally characterized. We call upon structural genomics centers to consider this approach and upon computational biologists to further develop function-based targeting methods.     

Crystal structure of YbaK protein from Haemophilus influenzae (HI1434) at 1.8 A resolution: functional implications

Structural genomics of proteins of unknown function most straightforwardly assists with assignment of biochemical activity when the new structure resembles that of proteins whose functions are known. When a new fold is revealed, the universe of known folds is enriched, and once the function is determined by other means, novel structure-function relationships are established. The previously unannotated protein HI1434 from H. influenzae provides a hybrid example of these two paradigms. It is a member of a microbial protein family, labeled in SwissProt as YbaK and ebsC. The crystal structure at 1.8 A resolution reported here reveals a fold that is only remotely related to the C-lectin fold, in particular to endostatin, and thus is not sufficiently similar to imply that YbaK proteins are saccharide binding proteins. However, a crevice that may accommodate a small ligand is evident. The putative binding site contains only one invariant residue, Lys46, which carries a functional group that could play a role in catalysis, indicating that YbaK is probably not an enzyme. Detailed sequence analysis, including a number of newly sequenced microbial organisms, highlights sequence homology to an insertion domain in prolyl-tRNA synthetases (proRS) from prokaryote, a domain whose function is unknown. A HI1434-based model of the insertion domain shows that it should also contain the putative binding site. Being part of a tRNA synthetases, the insertion domain is likely to be involved in oligonucleotide binding, with possible roles in recognition/discrimination or editing of prolyl-tRNA. By analogy, YbaK may also play a role in nucleotide or oligonucleotide binding, the nature of which is yet to be determined.     

Functional coverage of the human genome by existing structures, structural genomics targets, and homology models

The bias in protein structure and function space resulting from experimental limitations and targeting of particular functional classes of proteins by structural biologists has long been recognized, but never continuously quantified. Using the Enzyme Commission and the Gene Ontology classifications as a reference frame, and integrating structure data from the Protein Data Bank (PDB), target sequences from the structural genomics projects, structure homology derived from the SUPERFAMILY database, and genome annotations from Ensembl and NCBI, we provide a quantified view, both at the domain and whole-protein levels, of the current and projected coverage of protein structure and function space relative to the human genome. Protein structures currently provide at least one domain that covers 37% of the functional classes identified in the genome; whole structure coverage exists for 25% of the genome. If all the structural genomics targets were solved (twice the current number of structures in the PDB), it is estimated that structures of one domain would cover 69% of the functional classes identified and complete structure coverage would be 44%. Homology models from existing experimental structures extend the 37% coverage to 56% of the genome as single domains and 25% to 31% for complete structures. Coverage from homology models is not evenly distributed by protein family, reflecting differing degrees of sequence and structure divergence within families. While these data provide coverage, conversely, they also systematically highlight functional classes of proteins for which structures should be determined. Current key functional families without structure representation are highlighted here; updated information on the "most wanted list" that should be solved is available on a weekly basis from http://function.rcsb.org:8080/pdb/function_distribution/index.html.     

Methodologies for target selection in structural genomics

As the number of complete genomes that have been sequenced keeps growing, unknown areas of the protein space are revealed and new horizons open up. Most of this information will be fully appreciated only when the structural information about the encoded proteins becomes available. The goal of structural genomics is to direct large-scale efforts of protein structure determination, so as to increase the impact of these efforts. This review focuses on current approaches in structural genomics aimed at selecting representative proteins as targets for structure determination. We will discuss the concept of representative structures/folds, the current methodologies for identifying those proteins, and computational techniques for identifying proteins which are expected to adopt new structural folds.     

Progress of structural genomics initiatives: an analysis of solved target structures

The explosion in gene sequence data and technological breakthroughs in protein structure determination inspired the launch of structural genomics (SG) initiatives. An often stated goal of structural genomics is the high-throughput structural characterisation of all protein sequence families, with the long-term hope of significantly impacting on the life sciences, biotechnology and drug discovery. Here, we present a comprehensive analysis of solved SG targets to assess progress of these initiatives. Eleven consortia have contributed 316 non-redundant entries and 323 protein chains to the Protein Data Bank (PDB), and 459 and 393 domains to the CATH and SCOP structure classifications, respectively. The quality and size of these proteins are comparable to those solved in traditional structural biology and, despite huge scope for duplicated efforts, only 14% of targets have a close homologue (>/=30% sequence identity) solved by another consortium. Analysis of CATH and SCOP revealed the significant contribution that structural genomics is making to the coverage of superfamilies and folds. A total of 67% of SG domains in CATH are unique, lacking an already characterised close homologue in the PDB, whereas only 21% of non-SG domains are unique. For 29% of domains, structure determination revealed a remote evolutionary relationship not apparent from sequence, and 19% and 11% contributed new superfamilies and folds. The secondary structure class, fold and superfamily distributions of this dataset reflect those of the genomes. The domains fall into 172 different folds and 259 superfamilies in CATH but the distribution is highly skewed. The most populous of these are those that recur most frequently in the genomes. Whilst 11% of superfamilies are bacteria-specific, most are common to all three superkingdoms of life and together the 316 PDB entries have provided new and reliable homology models for 9287 non-redundant gene sequences in 206 completely sequenced genomes. From the perspective of this analysis, it appears that structural genomics is on track to be a success, and it is hoped that this work will inform future directions of the field.     

Practical lessons from protein structure prediction

Despite recent efforts to develop automated protein structure determination protocols, structural genomics projects are slow in generating fold assignments for complete proteomes, and spatial structures remain unknown for many protein families. Alternative cheap and fast methods to assign folds using prediction algorithms continue to provide valuable structural information for many proteins. The development of high-quality prediction methods has been boosted in the last years by objective community-wide assessment experiments. This paper gives an overview of the currently available practical approaches to protein structure prediction capable of generating accurate fold assignment. Recent advances in assessment of the prediction quality are also discussed.     

Superfamily assignments for the yeast proteome through integration of structure prediction with the gene ontology

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is one of the best-studied model organisms, yet the three-dimensional structure and molecular function of many yeast proteins remain unknown. Yeast proteins were parsed into 14,934 domains, and those lacking sequence similarity to proteins of known structure were folded using the Rosetta de novo structure prediction method on the World Community Grid. This structural data was integrated with process, component, and function annotations from the Saccharomyces Genome Database to assign yeast protein domains to SCOP superfamilies using a simple Bayesian approach. We have predicted the structure of 3,338 putative domains and assigned SCOP superfamily annotations to 581 of them. We have also assigned structural annotations to 7,094 predicted domains based on fold recognition and homology modeling methods. The domain predictions and structural information are available in an online database at http://rd.plos.org/10.1371_journal.pbio.0050076_01.     

Improving fold recognition without folds

The most reliable way to align two proteins of unknown structure is through sequence-profile and profile-profile alignment methods. If the structure for one of the two is known, fold recognition methods outperform purely sequence-based alignments. Here, we introduced a novel method that aligns generalised sequence and predicted structure profiles. Using predicted 1D structure (secondary structure and solvent accessibility) significantly improved over sequence-only methods, both in terms of correctly recognising pairs of proteins with different sequences and similar structures and in terms of correctly aligning the pairs. The scores obtained by our generalised scoring matrix followed an extreme value distribution; this yielded accurate estimates of the statistical significance of our alignments. We found that mistakes in 1D structure predictions correlated between proteins from different sequence-structure families. The impact of this surprising result was that our method succeeded in significantly out-performing sequence-only methods even without explicitly using structural information from any of the two. Since AGAPE also outperformed established methods that rely on 3D information, we made it available through. If we solved the problem of CPU-time required to apply AGAPE on millions of proteins, our results could also impact everyday database searches.