Evaluation of threading specificity and accuracy

Threading experiments with proteins from the globin family provide an indication of the nature of the structural similarity required for successful fold recognition and accurate sequence-structure alignment. Threading scores are found to rise above the noise of false positives whenever roughly 60% of residues from a sequence can be aligned with analogous sites in the structure of a remote homolog. Fold recognition specificity thus appears to be limited by the extent of structural similarity, regardless of the degree of sequence similarity. Threading alignment accuracy is found to depend more critically on the degree of structural similarity. Alignments are accurate, placing the majority of residues exactly as in structural alignment, only when superposition residuals are less than 2.5 Å. These criteria for successful recognition and sequence-structure alignment appear to be consistent with the successes and failures of threading methods in blind structure prediction. They also suggest a direct assay for improved threading methods: Potentials and alignment models should be tested for their ability to detect less extensive structural similarities, and to produce accurate alignments when superposition residuals for this conserved “core” fall in the range characteristic of remote homologs. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

1 This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America.

     

Protein structure prediction by threading methods: Evaluation of current techniques

This paper evaluates the results of a protein structure prediction contest. The predictions were made using threading procedures, which employ techniques for aligning sequences with 3D structures to select the correct fold of a given sequence from a set of alternatives. Nine different teams submitted 86 predictions, on a total of 21 target proteins with little or no sequence homology to proteins of known structure. The 3D structures of these proteins were newly determined by experimental methods, but not yet published or otherwise available to the predictors. The predictions, made from the amino acid sequence alone, thus represent a genuine test of the current performance of threading methods. Only a subset of all the predictions is evaluated here. It corresponds to the 44 predictions submitted for the 11 target proteins seen to adopt known folds. The predictions for the remaining 10 proteins were not analyzed, although weak similarities with known folds may also exist in these proteins. We find that threading methods are capable of identifying the correct fold in many cases, but not reliably enough as yet. Every team predicts correctly a different set of targets, with virtually all targets predicted correctly by at least one team. Also, common folds such as TIM barrels are recognized more readily than folds with only a few known examples. However, quite surprisingly, the quality of the sequence-structure alignments, corresponding to correctly recognized folds, is generally very poor, as judged by comparison with the corresponding 3D structure alignments. Thus, threading can presently not be relied upon to derive a detailed 3D model from the amino acid sequence. This raises a very intriguing question: how is fold recognition achieved? Our analysis suggests that it may be achieved because threading procedures maximize hydrophobic interactions in the protein core, and are reasonably good at recognizing local secondary structure. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Threading a database of protein cores

We present an analysis of 10 blind predictions prepared for a recent conference, “Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction.”¹ The sequences of these proteins are not detectably similar to those of any protein in the structure database then available, but we attempted, by a threading method, to recognize similarity to known domain folds. Four of the 10 proteins, as we subsequently learned, do indeed show significant similarity to then-known structures. For 2 of these proteins the predictions were accurate, in the sense that a similar structure was at or near the top of the list of threading scores, and the threading alignment agreed well with the corresponding structural alignment. For the best predicted model mean alignment error relative to the optimal structural alignment was 2.7 residues, arising entirely from small “register shifts” of strands or helices. In the analysis we attempt to identify factors responsible for these successes and failures. Since our threading method does not use gap penalties, we may readily distinguish between errors arising from our prior definition of the “cores” of known structures and errors arising from inherent limitations in the threading potential. It would appear from the results that successful substructure recognition depends most critically on accurate definition of the “fold” of a database protein. This definition must correctly delineate substructures that are, and are not, likely to be conserved during protein evolution. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

The WWWH of remote homolog detection: the state of the art

The detection of remote homolog pairs of proteins using computational methods is a pivotal problem in structural bioinformatics, aiming to compute protein folds on the basis of information in the database of known structures. In the last 25 years, several methods have been developed to tackle this problem, based on different approaches including sequence-sequence alignments and/or structure comparison. In this article, we will briefly discuss When, Why, Where and How (WWWH) to perform remote homology search, reviewing some of the most widely adopted computational approaches. The specific aim is highlighting the basic criteria implemented by different research groups and commenting on the status of the art as well as on still-open questions.