Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Comparative and Functional Genomics logoLink to Comparative and Functional Genomics
. 2003 Oct;4(5):542–548. doi: 10.1002/cfg.328

Fishing With (Proto)Net—A Principled Approach to Protein Target Selection

Michal Linial 1,✉
PMCID: PMC2447289  PMID: 18629007

Abstract

Structural genomics strives to represent the entire protein space. The first step towards achieving this goal is by rationally selecting proteins whose structures have not been determined, but that represent an as yet unknown structural superfamily or fold. Once such a structure is solved, it can be used as a template for modelling homologous proteins. This will aid in unveiling the structural diversity of the protein space. Currently, no reliable method for accurate 3D structural prediction is available when a sequence or a structure homologue is not available. Here we present a systematic methodology for selecting target proteins whose structure is likely to adopt a new, as yet unknown superfamily or fold. Our method takes advantage of a global classification of the sequence space as presented by ProtoNet-3D, which is a hierarchical agglomerative clustering of the proteins of interest (the proteins in Swiss-Prot) along with all solved structures (taken from the PDB). By navigating in the scaffold of ProtoNet-3D, we yield a prioritized list of proteins that are not yet structurally solved, along with the probability of each of the proteins belonging to a new superfamily or fold. The sorted list has been self-validated against real structural data that was not available when the predictions were made. The practical application of using our computational–statistical method to determine novel superfamilies for structural genomics projects is also discussed.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (122.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Al-Hashimi Hashim M., Gorin Andrey, Majumdar Ananya, Gosser Yuying, Patel Dinshaw J. Towards structural genomics of RNA: rapid NMR resonance assignment and simultaneous RNA tertiary structure determination using residual dipolar couplings. J Mol Biol. 2002 May 3;318(3):637–649. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00160-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker D., Sali A. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science. 2001 Oct 5;294(5540):93–96. doi: 10.1126/science.1065659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Balasubramanian S., Schneider T., Gerstein M., Regan L. Proteomics of Mycoplasma genitalium: identification and characterization of unannotated and atypical proteins in a small model genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Aug 15;28(16):3075–3082. doi: 10.1093/nar/28.16.3075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumeister W., Steven A. C. Macromolecular electron microscopy in the era of structural genomics. Trends Biochem Sci. 2000 Dec;25(12):624–631. doi: 10.1016/s0968-0004(00)01720-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berman H. M., Bhat T. N., Bourne P. E., Feng Z., Gilliland G., Weissig H., Westbrook J. The Protein Data Bank and the challenge of structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol. 2000 Nov;7 (Suppl):957–959. doi: 10.1038/80734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brenner S. E., Barken D., Levitt M. The PRESAGE database for structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Jan 1;27(1):251–253. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.1.251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brenner S. E. Target selection for structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol. 2000 Nov;7 (Suppl):967–969. doi: 10.1038/80747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Buchanan Sean G. Structural genomics: bridging functional genomics and structure-based drug design. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel. 2002 May;5(3):367–381. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Burley S. K., Almo S. C., Bonanno J. B., Capel M., Chance M. R., Gaasterland T., Lin D., Sali A., Studier F. W., Swaminathan S. Structural genomics: beyond the human genome project. Nat Genet. 1999 Oct;23(2):151–157. doi: 10.1038/13783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Burley S. K. An overview of structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol. 2000 Nov;7 (Suppl):932–934. doi: 10.1038/80697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chothia C. Proteins. One thousand families for the molecular biologist. Nature. 1992 Jun 18;357(6379):543–544. doi: 10.1038/357543a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Eisenstein E., Gilliland G. L., Herzberg O., Moult J., Orban J., Poljak R. J., Banerjei L., Richardson D., Howard A. J. Biological function made crystal clear - annotation of hypothetical proteins via structural genomics. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2000 Feb;11(1):25–30. doi: 10.1016/s0958-1669(99)00063-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Frishman Dmitrij. Knowledge-based selection of targets for structural genomics. Protein Eng. 2002 Mar;15(3):169–183. doi: 10.1093/protein/15.3.169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gerstein M., Hegyi H. Comparing genomes in terms of protein structure: surveys of a finite parts list. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1998 Oct;22(4):277–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1998.tb00371.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gough Julian, Chothia Cyrus. SUPERFAMILY: HMMs representing all proteins of known structure. SCOP sequence searches, alignments and genome assignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jan 1;30(1):268–272. doi: 10.1093/nar/30.1.268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Heger A., Holm L. Towards a covering set of protein family profiles. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2000;73(5):321–337. doi: 10.1016/s0079-6107(00)00013-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hegyi Hedi, Lin Jimmy, Greenbaum Dov, Gerstein Mark. Structural genomics analysis: characteristics of atypical, common, and horizontally transferred folds. Proteins. 2002 May 1;47(2):126–141. doi: 10.1002/prot.10078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Irving J. A., Whisstock J. C., Lesk A. M. Protein structural alignments and functional genomics. Proteins. 2001 Feb 15;42(3):378–382. doi: 10.1002/1097-0134(20010215)42:3<378::aid-prot70>3.0.co;2-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackson R. M., Russell R. B. Predicting function from structure: examples of the serine protease inhibitor canonical loop conformation found in extracellular proteins. Comput Chem. 2001 Dec;26(1):31–39. doi: 10.1016/s0097-8485(01)00097-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jones D. T., Taylor W. R. Towards structural genomics for transmembrane proteins. Biochem Soc Trans. 1998 Aug;26(3):429–438. doi: 10.1042/bst0260429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Koonin E. V., Wolf Y. I., Aravind L. Protein fold recognition using sequence profiles and its application in structural genomics. Adv Protein Chem. 2000;54:245–275. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3233(00)54008-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lindahl E., Elofsson A. Identification of related proteins on family, superfamily and fold level. J Mol Biol. 2000 Jan 21;295(3):613–625. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1999.3377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Linial M., Yona G. Methodologies for target selection in structural genomics. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2000;73(5):297–320. doi: 10.1016/s0079-6107(00)00011-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mallick P., Goodwill K. E., Fitz-Gibbon S., Miller J. H., Eisenberg D. Selecting protein targets for structural genomics of Pyrobaculum aerophilum: validating automated fold assignment methods by using binary hypothesis testing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Mar 14;97(6):2450–2455. doi: 10.1073/pnas.050589297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Martí-Renom M. A., Stuart A. C., Fiser A., Sánchez R., Melo F., Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 2000;29:291–325. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.29.1.291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mittl P. R., Grütter M. G. Structural genomics: opportunities and challenges. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2001 Aug;5(4):402–408. doi: 10.1016/s1367-5931(00)00221-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Murzin A. G., Bateman A. CASP2 knowledge-based approach to distant homology recognition and fold prediction in CASP4. Proteins. 2001;Suppl 5:76–85. doi: 10.1002/prot.10037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Pearl F. M., Martin N., Bray J. E., Buchan D. W., Harrison A. P., Lee D., Reeves G. A., Shepherd A. J., Sillitoe I., Todd A. E. A rapid classification protocol for the CATH Domain Database to support structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Jan 1;29(1):223–227. doi: 10.1093/nar/29.1.223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Portugaly Elon, Kifer Ilona, Linial Michal. Selecting targets for structural determination by navigating in a graph of protein families. Bioinformatics. 2002 Jul;18(7):899–907. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.7.899. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sali A. 100,000 protein structures for the biologist. Nat Struct Biol. 1998 Dec;5(12):1029–1032. doi: 10.1038/4136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Vitkup D., Melamud E., Moult J., Sander C. Completeness in structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol. 2001 Jun;8(6):559–566. doi: 10.1038/88640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Yona G., Linial N., Linial M. ProtoMap: automatic classification of protein sequences, a hierarchy of protein families, and local maps of the protein space. Proteins. 1999 Nov 15;37(3):360–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Comparative and Functional Genomics are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES