Protein fold recognition by total alignment probability

We present a protein fold-recognition method that uses a comprehensive statistical interpretation of structural Hidden Markov Models (HMMs). The structure/fold recognition is done by summing the probabilities of all sequence-to-structure alignments. The optimal alignment can be defined as the most probable, but suboptimal alignments may have comparable probabilities. These suboptimal alignments can be interpreted as optimal alignments to the "other" structures from the ensemble or optimal alignments under minor fluctuations in the scoring function. Summing probabilities for all alignments gives a complete estimate of sequence-model compatibility. In the case of HMMs that produce a sequence, this reflects the fact that due to our indifference to exactly how the HMM produced the sequence, we should sum over all possibilities. We have built a set of structural HMMs for 188 protein structures and have compared two methods for identifying the structure compatible with a sequence: by the optimal alignment probability and by the total probability. Fold recognition by total probability was 40% more accurate than fold recognition by the optimal alignment probability. Proteins 2000;40:451-462.     

Multiple protein sequence alignment from tertiary structure comparison: assignment of global and residue confidence levels.

An algorithm is presented for the accurate and rapid generation of multiple protein sequence alignments from tertiary structure comparisons. A preliminary multiple sequence alignment is performed using sequence information, which then determines an initial superposition of the structures. A structure comparison algorithm is applied to all pairs of proteins in the superimposed set and a similarity tree calculated. Multiple sequence alignments are then generated by following the tree from the branches to the root. At each branchpoint of the tree, a structure-based sequence alignment and coordinate transformations are output, with the multiple alignment of all structures output at the root. The algorithm encoded in STAMP (STructural Alignment of Multiple Proteins) is shown to give alignments in good agreement with published structural accounts within the dehydrogenase fold domains, globins, and serine proteinases. In order to reduce the need for visual verification, two similarity indices are introduced to determine the quality of each generated structural alignment. Sc quantifies the global structural similarity between pairs or groups of proteins, whereas Pij' provides a normalized measure of the confidence in the alignment of each residue. STAMP alignments have the quality of each alignment characterized by Sc and Pij' values and thus provide a reproducible resource for studies of residue conservation within structural motifs.     

Protein sequence threading: Averaging over structures

Multiple sequence alignments are a routine tool in protein fold recognition, but multiple structure alignments are computationally less cooperative. This work describes a method for protein sequence threading and sequence-to-structure alignments that uses multiple aligned structures, the aim being to improve models from protein threading calculations. Sequences are aligned into a field due to corresponding sites in homologous proteins. On the basis of a test set of more than 570 protein pairs, the procedure does improve alignment quality, although no more than averaging over sequences. For the force field tested, the benefit of structure averaging is smaller than that of adding sequence similarity terms or a contribution from secondary structure predictions. Although there is a significant improvement in the quality of sequence-to-structure alignments, this does not directly translate to an immediate improvement in fold recognition capability.     

Overcoming sequence misalignments with weighted structural superposition

An appropriate structural superposition identifies similarities and differences between homologous proteins that are not evident from sequence alignments alone. We have coupled our Gaussian‐weighted RMSD (wRMSD) tool with a sequence aligner and seed extension (SE) algorithm to create a robust technique for overlaying structures and aligning sequences of homologous proteins (HwRMSD). HwRMSD overcomes errors in the initial sequence alignment that would normally propagate into a standard RMSD overlay. SE can generate a corrected sequence alignment from the improved structural superposition obtained by wRMSD. HwRMSD's robust performance and its superiority over standard RMSD are demonstrated over a range of homologous proteins. Its better overlay results in corrected sequence alignments with good agreement to HOMSTRAD. Finally, HwRMSD is compared to established structural alignment methods: FATCAT, secondary‐structure matching, combinatorial extension, and Dalilite. Most methods are comparable at placing residue pairs within 2 Å, but HwRMSD places many more residue pairs within 1 Å, providing a clear advantage. Such high accuracy is essential in drug design, where small distances can have a large impact on computational predictions. This level of accuracy is also needed to correct sequence alignments in an automated fashion, especially for omics‐scale analysis. HwRMSD can align homologs with low‐sequence identity and large conformational differences, cases where both sequence‐based and structural‐based methods may fail. The HwRMSD pipeline overcomes the dependency of structural overlays on initial sequence pairing and removes the need to determine the best sequence‐alignment method, substitution matrix, and gap parameters for each unique pair of homologs. Proteins 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

GeneSilico protein structure prediction meta-server

Rigorous assessments of protein structure prediction have demonstrated that fold recognition methods can identify remote similarities between proteins when standard sequence search methods fail. It has been shown that the accuracy of predictions is improved when refined multiple sequence alignments are used instead of single sequences and if different methods are combined to generate a consensus model. There are several meta-servers available that integrate protein structure predictions performed by various methods, but they do not allow for submission of user-defined multiple sequence alignments and they seldom offer confidentiality of the results. We developed a novel WWW gateway for protein structure prediction, which combines the useful features of other meta-servers available, but with much greater flexibility of the input. The user may submit an amino acid sequence or a multiple sequence alignment to a set of methods for primary, secondary and tertiary structure prediction. Fold-recognition results (target-template alignments) are converted into full-atom 3D models and the quality of these models is uniformly assessed. A consensus between different FR methods is also inferred. The results are conveniently presented on-line on a single web page over a secure, password-protected connection. The GeneSilico protein structure prediction meta-server is freely available for academic users at http://genesilico.pl/meta.     

Identifying sequence-structure pairs undetected by sequence alignments

We examine how effectively simple potential functions previously developed can identify compatibilities between sequences and structures of proteins for database searches. The potential function consists of pairwise contact energies, repulsive packing potentials of residues for overly dense arrangement and short-range potentials for secondary structures, all of which were estimated from statistical preferences observed in known protein structures. Each potential energy term was modified to represent compatibilities between sequences and structures for globular proteins. Pairwise contact interactions in a sequence-structure alignment are evaluated in a mean field approximation on the basis of probabilities of site pairs to be aligned. Gap penalties are assumed to be proportional to the number of contacts at each residue position, and as a result gaps will be more frequently placed on protein surfaces than in cores. In addition to minimum energy alignments, we use probability alignments made by successively aligning site pairs in order by pairwise alignment probabilities. The results show that the present energy function and alignment method can detect well both folds compatible with a given sequence and, inversely, sequences compatible with a given fold, and yield mostly similar alignments for these two types of sequence and structure pairs. Probability alignments consisting of most reliable site pairs only can yield extremely small root mean square deviations, and including less reliable pairs increases the deviations. Also, it is observed that secondary structure potentials are usefully complementary to yield improved alignments with this method. Remarkably, by this method some individual sequence-structure pairs are detected having only 5-20% sequence identity.     

Structure-based evaluation of sequence comparison and fold recognition alignment accuracy

The biological role, biochemical function, and structure of uncharacterized protein sequences is often inferred from their similarity to known proteins. A constant goal is to increase the reliability, sensitivity, and accuracy of alignment techniques to enable the detection of increasingly distant relationships. Development, tuning, and testing of these methods benefit from appropriate benchmarks for the assessment of alignment accuracy.Here, we describe a benchmark protocol to estimate sequence-to-sequence and sequence-to-structure alignment accuracy. The protocol consists of structurally related pairs of proteins and procedures to evaluate alignment accuracy over the whole set. The set of protein pairs covers all the currently known fold types. The benchmark is challenging in the sense that it consists of proteins lacking clear sequence similarity.Correct target alignments are derived from the three-dimensional structures of these pairs by rigid body superposition. An evaluation engine computes the accuracy of alignments obtained from a particular algorithm in terms of alignment shifts with respect to the structure derived alignments. Using this benchmark we estimate that the best results can be obtained from a combination of amino acid residue substitution matrices and knowledge-based potentials.     

A study on protein sequence alignment quality

One of the most central methods in bioinformatics is the alignment of two protein or DNA sequences. However, so far large-scale benchmarks examining the quality of these alignments are scarce. On the other hand, recently several large-scale studies of the capacity of different methods to identify related sequences has led to new insights about the performance of fold recognition methods. To increase our understanding about fold recognition methods, we present a large-scale benchmark of alignment quality. We compare alignments from several different alignment methods, including sequence alignments, hidden Markov models, PSI-BLAST, CLUSTALW, and threading methods. For most methods, the alignment quality increases significantly at about 20% sequence identity. The difference in alignment quality between different methods is quite small, and the main difference can be seen at the exact positioning of the sharp rise in alignment quality, that is, around 15-20% sequence identity. The alignments are improved by using structural information. In general, the best alignments are obtained by methods that use predicted secondary structure information and sequence profiles obtained from PSI-BLAST. One interesting observation is that for different pairs many different methods create the best alignments. This finding implies that if a method that could select the best alignment method for each pair existed, a significant improvement of the alignment quality could be gained.     

Sequence comparison and protein structure prediction

Sequence comparison is a major step in the prediction of protein structure from existing templates in the Protein Data Bank. The identification of potentially remote homologues to be used as templates for modeling target sequences of unknown structure and their accurate alignment remain challenges, despite many years of study. The most recent advances have been in combining as many sources of information as possible--including amino acid variation in the form of profiles or hidden Markov models for both the target and template families, known and predicted secondary structures of the template and target, respectively, the combination of structure alignment for distant homologues and sequence alignment for close homologues to build better profiles, and the anchoring of certain regions of the alignment based on existing biological data. Newer technologies have been applied to the problem, including the use of support vector machines to tackle the fold classification problem for a target sequence and the alignment of hidden Markov models. Finally, using the consensus of many fold recognition methods, whether based on profile-profile alignments, threading or other approaches, continues to be one of the most successful strategies for both recognition and alignment of remote homologues. Although there is still room for improvement in identification and alignment methods, additional progress may come from model building and refinement methods that can compensate for large structural changes between remotely related targets and templates, as well as for regions of misalignment.     

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.     

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.     

A Bayes-optimal sequence-structure theory that unifies protein sequence-structure recognition and alignment

A rigorous Bayesian analysis is presented that unifies protein sequence-structure alignment and recognition. Given a sequence, explicit formulae are derived to select (1) its globally most probable core structure from a structure library; (2) its globally most probable alignment to a given core structure; (3) its most probable joint core structure and alignment chosen globally across the entire library; and (4) its most probable individual segments, secondary structure, and super-secondary structures across the entire library. The computations involved are NP-hard in the general case (3D-3D). Fast exact recursions for the restricted sequence singleton-only (1D-3D) case are given. Conclusions include: (a) the most probable joint core structure and alignment is not necessarily the most probable alignment of the most probable core structure, but rather maximizes the product of core and alignment probabilities; (b) use of a sequence-independent linear or affine gap penalty may result in the highest-probability threading not having the lowest score; (c) selecting the most probable core structure from the library (core structure selection or fold recognition only) involves comparing probabilities summed over all possible alignments of the sequence to the core, and not comparing individual optimal (or near-optimal) sequence-structure alignments; and (d) assuming uninformative priors, core structure selection is equivalent to comparing the ratio of two global means.     

QUASAR--scoring and ranking of sequence-structure alignments

SUMMARY: Sequence-structure alignments are a common means for protein structure prediction in the fields of fold recognition and homology modeling, and there is a broad variety of programs that provide such alignments based on sequence similarity, secondary structure or contact potentials. Nevertheless, finding the best sequence-structure alignment in a pool of alignments remains a difficult problem. QUASAR (quality of sequence-structure alignments ranking) provides a unifying framework for scoring sequence-structure alignments that aids finding well-performing combinations of well-known and custom-made scoring schemes. Those scoring functions can be benchmarked against widely accepted quality scores like MaxSub, TMScore, Touch and APDB, thus enabling users to test their own alignment scores against 'standard-of-truth' structure-based scores. Furthermore, individual score combinations can be optimized with respect to benchmark sets based on known structural relationships using QUASAR's in-built optimization routines.     

The SSEA server for protein secondary structure alignment

SUMMARY: We present a web server that computes alignments of protein secondary structures. The server supports both performing pairwise alignments and searching a secondary structure against a library of domain folds. It can calculate global and local secondary structure element alignments. A combination of local and global alignment steps can be used to search for domains inside the query sequence or help in the discrimination of novel folds. Both the SCOP and PDB fold libraries, clustered at 95 and 40% sequence identity, are available for alignment. AVAILABILITY: The web server interface is freely accessible to academic users at http://protein.cribi.unipd.it/ssea/. The executable version and benchmarking data are available from the same web page.     

Progressive structure-based alignment of homologous proteins: Adopting sequence comparison strategies

Comparison of multiple protein structures has a broad range of applications in the analysis of protein structure, function and evolution. Multiple structure alignment tools (MSTAs) are necessary to obtain a simultaneous comparison of a family of related folds. In this study, we have developed a method for multiple structure comparison largely based on sequence alignment techniques. A widely used Structural Alphabet named Protein Blocks (PBs) was used to transform the information on 3D protein backbone conformation as a 1D sequence string. A progressive alignment strategy similar to CLUSTALW was adopted for multiple PB sequence alignment (mulPBA). Highly similar stretches identified by the pairwise alignments are given higher weights during the alignment. The residue equivalences from PB based alignments are used to obtain a three dimensional fit of the structures followed by an iterative refinement of the structural superposition. Systematic comparisons using benchmark datasets of MSTAs underlines that the alignment quality is better than MULTIPROT, MUSTANG and the alignments in HOMSTRAD, in more than 85% of the cases. Comparison with other rigid-body and flexible MSTAs also indicate that mulPBA alignments are superior to most of the rigid-body MSTAs and highly comparable to the flexible alignment methods.     

The PredictProtein server

PredictProtein (PP, http://cubic.bioc.columbia.edu/pp/) is an internet service for sequence analysis and the prediction of aspects of protein structure and function. Users submit protein sequence or alignments; the server returns a multiple sequence alignment, PROSITE sequence motifs, low-complexity regions (SEG), ProDom domain assignments, nuclear localisation signals, regions lacking regular structure and predictions of secondary structure, solvent accessibility, globular regions, transmembrane helices, coiled-coil regions, structural switch regions and disulfide-bonds. Upon request, fold recognition by prediction-based threading is available. For all services, users can submit their query either by electronic mail or interactively from World Wide Web.     

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.     

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.     

A machine learning information retrieval approach to protein fold recognition

MOTIVATION: Recognizing proteins that have similar tertiary structure is the key step of template-based protein structure prediction methods. Traditionally, a variety of alignment methods are used to identify similar folds, based on sequence similarity and sequence-structure compatibility. Although these methods are complementary, their integration has not been thoroughly exploited. Statistical machine learning methods provide tools for integrating multiple features, but so far these methods have been used primarily for protein and fold classification, rather than addressing the retrieval problem of fold recognition-finding a proper template for a given query protein. RESULTS: Here we present a two-stage machine learning, information retrieval, approach to fold recognition. First, we use alignment methods to derive pairwise similarity features for query-template protein pairs. We also use global profile-profile alignments in combination with predicted secondary structure, relative solvent accessibility, contact map and beta-strand pairing to extract pairwise structural compatibility features. Second, we apply support vector machines to these features to predict the structural relevance (i.e. in the same fold or not) of the query-template pairs. For each query, the continuous relevance scores are used to rank the templates. The FOLDpro approach is modular, scalable and effective. Compared with 11 other fold recognition methods, FOLDpro yields the best results in almost all standard categories on a comprehensive benchmark dataset. Using predictions of the top-ranked template, the sensitivity is approximately 85, 56, and 27% at the family, superfamily and fold levels respectively. Using the 5 top-ranked templates, the sensitivity increases to 90, 70, and 48%.