Identification of novel restriction endonuclease-like fold families among hypothetical proteins

Restriction endonucleases and other nucleic acid cleaving enzymes form a large and extremely diverse superfamily that display little sequence similarity despite retaining a common core fold responsible for cleavage. The lack of significant sequence similarity between protein families makes homology inference a challenging task and hinders new family identification with traditional sequence-based approaches. Using the consensus fold recognition method Meta-BASIC that combines sequence profiles with predicted protein secondary structure, we identify nine new restriction endonuclease-like fold families among previously uncharacterized proteins and predict these proteins to cleave nucleic acid substrates. Application of transitive searches combined with gene neighborhood analysis allow us to confidently link these unknown families to a number of known restriction endonuclease-like structures and thus assign folds to the uncharacterized proteins. Finally, our method identifies a novel restriction endonuclease-like domain in the C-terminus of RecC that is not detected with structure-based searches of the existing PDB database.     

Artificial protein sequences enable recognition of vicinal and distant protein functional relationships

High divergence in protein sequences makes the detection of distant protein relationships through homology-based approaches challenging. Grouping protein sequences into families, through similarities in either sequence or 3-D structure, facilitates in the improved recognition of protein relationships. In addition, strategically designed protein-like sequences have been shown to bridge distant structural domain families by serving as artificial linkers. In this study, we have augmented a search database of known protein domain families with such designed sequences, with the intention of providing functional clues to domain families of unknown structure. When assessed using representative query sequences from each family, we obtain a success rate of 94% in protein domain families of known structure. Further, we demonstrate that the augmented search space enabled fold recognition for 582 families with no structural information available a priori. Additionally, we were able to provide reliable functional relationships for 610 orphan families. We discuss the application of our method in predicting functional roles through select examples for DUF4922, DUF5131, and DUF5085. Our approach also detects new associations between families that were previously not known to be related, as demonstrated through new sub-groups of the RNA polymerase domain among three distinct RNA viruses. Taken together, designed sequences-augmented search databases direct the detection of meaningful relationships between distant protein families. In turn, they enable fold recognition and offer reliable pointers to potential functional sites that may be probed further through direct mutagenesis studies.     

Hidden Markov models that use predicted secondary structures for fold recognition.

There are many proteins that share the same fold but have no clear sequence similarity. To predict the structure of these proteins, so called "protein fold recognition methods" have been developed. During the last few years, improvements of protein fold recognition methods have been achieved through the use of predicted secondary structures (Rice and Eisenberg, J Mol Biol 1997;267:1026-1038), as well as by using multiple sequence alignments in the form of hidden Markov models (HMM) (Karplus et al., Proteins Suppl 1997;1:134-139). To test the performance of different fold recognition methods, we have developed a rigorous benchmark where representatives for all proteins of known structure are matched against each other. Using this benchmark, we have compared the performance of automatically-created hidden Markov models with standard-sequence-search methods. Further, we combine the use of predicted secondary structures and multiple sequence alignments into a combined method that performs better than methods that do not use this combination of information. Using only single sequences, the correct fold of a protein was detected for 10% of the test cases in our benchmark. Including multiple sequence information increased this number to 16%, and when predicted secondary structure information was included as well, the fold was correctly identified in 20% of the cases. Moreover, if the correct secondary structure was used, 27% of the proteins could be correctly matched to a fold. For comparison, blast2, fasta, and ssearch identifies the fold correctly in 13-17% of the cases. Thus, standard pairwise sequence search methods perform almost as well as hidden Markov models in our benchmark. This is probably because the automatically-created multiple sequence alignments used in this study do not contain enough diversity and because the current generation of hidden Markov models do not perform very well when built from a few sequences.     

FORESST: fold recognition from secondary structure predictions of proteins

MOTIVATION: A method for recognizing the three-dimensional fold from the protein amino acid sequence based on a combination of hidden Markov models (HMMs) and secondary structure prediction was recently developed for proteins in the Mainly-Alpha structural class. Here, this methodology is extended to Mainly-Beta and Alpha-Beta class proteins. Compared to other fold recognition methods based on HMMs, this approach is novel in that only secondary structure information is used. Each HMM is trained from known secondary structure sequences of proteins having a similar fold. Secondary structure prediction is performed for the amino acid sequence of a query protein. The predicted fold of a query protein is the fold described by the model fitting the predicted sequence the best. RESULTS: After model cross-validation, the success rate on 44 test proteins covering the three structural classes was found to be 59%. On seven fold predictions performed prior to the publication of experimental structure, the success rate was 71%. In conclusion, this approach manages to capture important information about the fold of a protein embedded in the length and arrangement of the predicted helices, strands and coils along the polypeptide chain. When a more extensive library of HMMs representing the universe of known structural families is available (work in progress), the program will allow rapid screening of genomic databases and sequence annotation when fold similarity is not detectable from the amino acid sequence. AVAILABILITY: FORESST web server at http://absalpha.dcrt.nih.gov:8008/ for the library of HMMs of structural families used in this paper. FORESST web server at http://www.tigr.org/ for a more extensive library of HMMs (work in progress). CONTACT: valedf@tigr.org; munson@helix.nih.gov; garnier@helix.nih.gov     

MANIFOLD: protein fold recognition based on secondary structure, sequence similarity and enzyme classification

We present a protein fold recognition method, MANIFOLD, which uses the similarity between target and template proteins in predicted secondary structure, sequence and enzyme code to predict the fold of the target protein. We developed a non-linear ranking scheme in order to combine the scores of the three different similarity measures used. For a difficult test set of proteins with very little sequence similarity, the program predicts the fold class correctly in 34% of cases. This is an over twofold increase in accuracy compared with sequence-based methods such as PSI-BLAST or GenTHREADER, which score 13-14% correct first hits for the same test set. The functional similarity term increases the prediction accuracy by up to 3% compared with using the combination of secondary structure similarity and PSI-BLAST alone. We argue that using functional and secondary structure information can increase the fold recognition beyond sequence similarity.     

Enhanced protein fold recognition using secondary structure information from NMR.

NMR offers the possibility of accurate secondary structure for proteins that would be too large for structure determination. In the absence of an X-ray crystal structure, this information should be useful as an adjunct to protein fold recognition methods based on low resolution force fields. The value of this information has been tested by adding varying amounts of artificial secondary structure data and threading a sequence through a library of candidate folds. Using a literature test set, the threading method alone has only a one-third chance of producing a correct answer among the top ten guesses. With realistic secondary structure information, one can expect a 60-80% chance of finding a homologous structure. The method has then been applied to examples with published estimates of secondary structure. This implementation is completely independent of sequence homology, and sequences are optimally aligned to candidate structures with gaps and insertions allowed. Unlike work using predicted secondary structure, we test the effect of differing amounts of relatively reliable data.     

一个识别蛋白质折叠模式的SVM分类器

蛋白质折叠模式识别是一种分析蛋白质结构的重要方法。以序列相似性较低的蛋白质为训练集,提取蛋白质序列信息频数及疏水性等信息作为折叠类型特征,从SCOP数据库中已分类蛋白质构建1 393种折叠模式的数据集,采用SVM预测蛋白质1 393种折叠模式。封闭测试准确率达99.612 2%,基于SCOP的开放测试准确率达79.632 9%。基于另一个权威测试集的开放测试折叠准确率达64.705 9%,SCOP类准确率达76.470 6%,可以有效地对蛋白质折叠模式进行预测,从而为蛋白质从头预测提供参考。     

Recognition of remotely related structural homologues using sequence profiles of aligned homologous protein structures

In order to bridge the gap between proteins with three-dimensional (3-D) structural information and those without 3-D structures, extensive experimental and computational efforts for structure recognition are being invested. One of the rapid and simple computational approaches for structure recognition makes use of sequence profiles with sensitive profile matching procedures to identify remotely related homologous families. While adopting this approach we used profiles that are generated from structure-based sequence alignment of homologous protein domains of known structures integrated with sequence homologues. We present an assessment of this fast and simple approach. About one year ago, using this approach, we had identified structural homologues for 315 sequence families, which were not known to have any 3-D structural information. The subsequent experimental structure determination for at least one of the members in 110 of 315 sequence families allowed a retrospective assessment of the correctness of structure recognition. We demonstrate that correct folds are detected with an accuracy of 96.4% (106/110). Most (81/106) of the associations are made correctly to the specific structural family. For 23/106, the structure associations are valid at the superfamily level. Thus, profiles of protein families of known structure when used with sensitive profile-based search procedure result in structure association of high confidence. Further assignment at the level of superfamily or family would provide clues to probable functions of new proteins. Importantly, the public availability of these profiles from us could enable one to perform genome wide structure assignment in a local machine in a fast and accurate manner.     

Bioinformatics methods to predict protein structure and function. A practical approach

Protein structure prediction by using bioinformatics can involve sequence similarity searches, multiple sequence alignments, identification and characterization of domains, secondary structure prediction, solvent accessibility prediction, automatic protein fold recognition, constructing three-dimensional models to atomic detail, and model validation. Not all protein structure prediction projects involve the use of all these techniques. A central part of a typical protein structure prediction is the identification of a suitable structural target from which to extrapolate three-dimensional information for a query sequence. The way in which this is done defines three types of projects. The first involves the use of standard and well-understood techniques. If a structural template remains elusive, a second approach using nontrivial methods is required. If a target fold cannot be reliably identified because inconsistent results have been obtained from nontrivial data analyses, the project falls into the third type of project and will be virtually impossible to complete with any degree of reliability. In this article, a set of protocols to predict protein structure from sequence is presented and distinctions among the three types of project are given. These methods, if used appropriately, can provide valuable indicators of protein structure and function.     

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.     

Single-body residue-level knowledge-based energy score combined with sequence-profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition

An elaborate knowledge-based energy function is designed for fold recognition. It is a residue-level single-body potential so that highly efficient dynamic programming method can be used for alignment optimization. It contains a backbone torsion term, a buried surface term, and a contact-energy term. The energy score combined with sequence profile and secondary structure information leads to an algorithm called SPARKS (Sequence, secondary structure Profiles and Residue-level Knowledge-based energy Score) for fold recognition. Compared with the popular PSI-BLAST, SPARKS is 21% more accurate in sequence-sequence alignment in ProSup benchmark and 10%, 25%, and 20% more sensitive in detecting the family, superfamily, fold similarities in the Lindahl benchmark, respectively. Moreover, it is one of the best methods for sensitivity (the number of correctly recognized proteins), alignment accuracy (based on the MaxSub score), and specificity (the average number of correctly recognized proteins whose scores are higher than the first false positives) in LiveBench 7 among more than twenty servers of non-consensus methods. The simple algorithm used in SPARKS has the potential for further improvement. This highly efficient method can be used for fold recognition on genomic scales. A web server is established for academic users on http://theory.med.buffalo.edu.     

The ups and downs of protein topology; rapid comparison of protein structure

Protein topology can be described at different levels. At the most fundamental level, it is a sequence of secondary structure elements (a "primary topology string"). Searching predicted primary topology strings against a library of strings from known protein structures is the basis of some protein fold recognition methods. Here a method known as TOPSCAN is presented for rapid comparison of protein structures. Rather than a simple two-letter alphabet (encoding strand and helix), more complex alphabets are used encoding direction, proximity, accessibility and length of secondary elements and loops in addition to secondary structure. Comparisons are made between the structural information content of primary topology strings and encodings which contain additional information ("secondary topology strings"). The algorithm is extremely fast, with a scan of a large domain against a library of more than 2000 secondary structure strings completing in approximately 30 s. Analysis of protein fold similarity using TOPSCAN at primary and secondary topology levels is presented.     

Globin-like蛋白质折叠类型识别

蛋白质折叠类型识别是蛋白质结构研究的重要内容.以SCOP中的Globin-like折叠为研究对象,选择其中序列同一性小于25%的17个代表性蛋白质为训练集,采用机器和人工结合的办法进行结构比对,产生序列排比,经过训练得到了适合Globin-like折叠的概形隐马尔科夫模型(profile HMM)用于该折叠类型的识别.以Astrall.65中的68057个结构域样本进行检验,识别敏感度为99.64%,特异性100%.在折叠类型水平上,与Pfam和SUPERFAMILY单纯使用序列比对构建的HMM相比,所用模型由多于100个归为一个,仍然保持了很高的识别效果.结果表明:对序列相似度很低但具有相同折叠类型的蛋白质,可以通过引入结构比对的方法建立统一的HMM模型,实现高准确率的折叠类型识别.     

Constructing amino acid residue substitution classes maximally indicative of local protein structure

Using an information theoretic formalism, we optimize classes of amino acid substitution to be maximally indicative of local protein structure. Our statistically-derived classes are loosely identifiable with the heuristic constructions found in previously published work. However, while these other methods provide a more rigid idealization of physicochemically constrained residue substitution, our classes provide substantially more structural information with many fewer parameters. Moreover, these substitution classes are consistent with the paradigmatic view of the sequence-to-structure relationship in globular proteins which holds that the three-dimensional architecture is predominantly determined by the arrangement of hydrophobic and polar side chains with weak constraints on the actual amino acid identities. More specific constraints are imposed on the placement of prolines, glycines, and the charged residues. These substitution classes have been used in highly accurate predictions of residue solvent accessibility. They could also be used in the identification of homologous proteins, the construction and refinement of multiple sequence alignments, and as a means of condensing and codifying the information in multiple sequence alignments for secondary structure prediction and tertiary fold recognition. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

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.     

双绕蛋白质的分类与识别

蛋白质折叠识别是蛋白质结构研究的重要内容。双绕是α/β蛋白质中结构典型的常见折叠类型。选取22个家族中序列一致性小于25%的79个典型双绕蛋白质作为训练集,以RMSD为指标进行系统聚类,并对各类建立基于结构比对的概形隐马尔科夫模型(profile-HMM)。将Astral1.65中序列一致性小于95%的9 505个样本作为检验集,整体识别敏感性为93.9%,特异性为82.1%,MCC值为0.876。结果表明:对于成员较多,无法建立统一模型的折叠类型,分类建模可以实现较高准确率的识别。     

Dynameomics: large-scale assessment of native protein flexibility

Structure is only the first step in understanding the interactions and functions of proteins. In this paper, we explore the flexibility of proteins across a broad database of over 250 solvated protein molecular dynamics simulations in water for an aggregate simulation time of approximately 6 micros. These simulations are from our Dynameomics project, and these proteins represent approximately 75% of all known protein structures. We employ principal component analysis of the atomic coordinates over time to determine the primary axis and magnitude of the flexibility of each atom in a simulation. This technique gives us both a database of flexibility for many protein fold families and a compact visual representation of a particular protein's native-state conformational space, neither of which are available using experimental methods alone. These tools allow us to better understand the nature of protein motion and to describe its relationship to other structural and dynamical characteristics. In addition to reporting general properties of protein flexibility and detailing many dynamic motifs, we characterize the relationship between protein native-state flexibility and early events in thermal unfolding and show that flexibility predicts how a protein will begin to unfold. We provide evidence that fold families have conserved flexibility patterns, and family members who deviate from the conserved patterns have very low sequence identity. Finally, we examine novel aspects of highly inflexible loops that are as important to structural integrity as conventional secondary structure. These loops, which are difficult if not impossible to locate without dynamic data, may constitute new structural motifs.     

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.