Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 1984 Feb;81(4):1075–1078. doi: 10.1073/pnas.81.4.1075

On the use of sequence homologies to predict protein structure: identical pentapeptides can have completely different conformations.

W Kabsch, C Sander
PMCID: PMC344767  PMID: 6422466

Abstract

The search for amino acid sequence homologies can be a powerful tool for predicting protein structure. Discovered sequence homologies are currently used in predicting the function of oncogene proteins. To sharpen this tool, we investigated the structural significance of short sequence homologies by searching proteins of known three-dimensional structure for subsequence identities. In 62 proteins with 10,000 residues, we found that the longest isolated homologies between unrelated proteins are five residues long. In 6 (out of 25) cases we saw surprising structural adaptability: the same five residues are part of an alpha-helix in one protein and part of a beta-strand in another protein. These examples show quantitatively that pentapeptide structure within a protein is strongly dependent on sequence context, a fact essentially ignored in most protein structure prediction methods: just considering the local sequence of five residues is not sufficient to predict correctly the local conformation (secondary structure). Cooperativity of length six or longer must be taken into account. Also, we are warned that in the growing practice of comparing a new protein sequence with a data base of known sequences, finding an identical pentapeptide sequence between two proteins is not a significant indication of structural similarity or of evolutionary kinship.

Full text

PDF
1075

Selected References

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

  1. Bernstein F. C., Koetzle T. F., Williams G. J., Meyer E. F., Jr, Brice M. D., Rodgers J. R., Kennard O., Shimanouchi T., Tasumi M. The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol. 1977 May 25;112(3):535–542. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(77)80200-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Doolittle R. F., Hunkapiller M. W., Hood L. E., Devare S. G., Robbins K. C., Aaronson S. A., Antoniades H. N. Simian sarcoma virus onc gene, v-sis, is derived from the gene (or genes) encoding a platelet-derived growth factor. Science. 1983 Jul 15;221(4607):275–277. doi: 10.1126/science.6304883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Doolittle R. F. Similar amino acid sequences: chance or common ancestry? Science. 1981 Oct 9;214(4517):149–159. doi: 10.1126/science.7280687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gay N. J., Walker J. E. Homology between human bladder carcinoma oncogene product and mitochondrial ATP-synthase. Nature. 1983 Jan 20;301(5897):262–264. doi: 10.1038/301262a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Haber J. E., Koshland D. E., Jr An evaluation of the relatedness of proteins based on comparison of amino acid sequences. J Mol Biol. 1970 Jun 28;50(3):617–639. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(70)90089-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kabsch W., Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers. 1983 Dec;22(12):2577–2637. doi: 10.1002/bip.360221211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kabsch W., Sander C. How good are predictions of protein secondary structure? FEBS Lett. 1983 May 8;155(2):179–182. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(82)80597-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Manwell C. Molecular palaeogenetics: amino acid sequence homology in ribonuclease and lysozyme. Comp Biochem Physiol. 1967 Nov;23(2):383–406. doi: 10.1016/0010-406x(67)90394-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ptitsyn O. B., Finkelstein A. V. Theory of protein secondary structure and algorithm of its prediction. Biopolymers. 1983 Jan;22(1):15–25. doi: 10.1002/bip.360220105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Steigemann W., Weber E. Structure of erythrocruorin in different ligand states refined at 1.4 A resolution. J Mol Biol. 1979 Jan 25;127(3):309–338. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(79)90332-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Taylor W. R., Thornton J. M. Prediction of super-secondary structure in proteins. Nature. 1983 Feb 10;301(5900):540–542. doi: 10.1038/301540a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Waterfield M. D., Scrace G. T., Whittle N., Stroobant P., Johnsson A., Wasteson A., Westermark B., Heldin C. H., Huang J. S., Deuel T. F. Platelet-derived growth factor is structurally related to the putative transforming protein p28sis of simian sarcoma virus. Nature. 1983 Jul 7;304(5921):35–39. doi: 10.1038/304035a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wierenga R. K., Hol W. G. Predicted nucleotide-binding properties of p21 protein and its cancer-associated variant. Nature. 1983 Apr 28;302(5911):842–844. doi: 10.1038/302842a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES