title: ROC and confusion analysis of structure comparison methods identify the main causes of divergence from manual protein classification.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Current classification of protein folds are based, ultimately, on visual inspection of similarities. Previous attempts to use computerized structure comparison methods show only partial agreement with curated databases, but have failed to provide detailed statistical and structural analysis of the causes of these divergences.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We construct a map of similarities/dissimilarities among manually defined protein folds, using a score cutoff value determined by means of the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve. It identifies folds which appear to overlap or to be "confused" with each other by two distinct similarity measures. It also identifies folds which appear inhomogeneous in that they contain apparently dissimilar domains, as measured by both similarity measures. At a low (1%) false positive rate, 25 to 38% of domain pairs in the same SCOP folds do not appear similar. Our results suggest either that some of these folds are defined using criteria other than purely structural consideration or that the similarity measures used do not recognize some relevant aspects of structural similarity in certain cases. Specifically, variations of the "common core" of some folds are severe enough to defeat attempts to automatically detect structural similarity and/or to lead to false detection of similarity between domains in distinct folds. Structures in some folds vary greatly in size because they contain varying numbers of a repeating unit, while similarity scores are quite sensitive to size differences. Structures in different folds may contain similar substructures, which produce false positives. Finally, the common core within a structure may be too small relative to the entire structure, to be recognized as the basis of similarity to another.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A detailed analysis of the entire available protein fold space by two automated similarity methods reveals the extent and the nature of the divergence between the automatically determined similarity/dissimilarity and the manual fold type classifications. Some of the observed divergences can probably be addressed with better structure comparison methods and better automatic, intelligent classification procedures. Others may be intrinsic to the problem, suggesting a continuous rather than discrete protein fold space.
authors.affiliation: Mathematical and Statistical Computing Laboratory, DCB, CIT, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, MD, USA. vsam@mail.nih.gov
authors.forename: Vichetra
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Sam
authors.forename: Chin-Hsien
authors.initials: CH
authors.lastname: Tai
authors.forename: Jean
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Garnier
authors.forename: Jean-Francois
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Gibrat
authors.forename: Byungkook
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Peter J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Munson
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D000595:Amino Acid Sequence; D016477:Artifacts; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D008969:Molecular Sequence Data; D015588:Observer Variation; D017510:Protein Folding; D011506:Proteins / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000145:classification*; D012372:ROC Curve; D016415:Sequence Alignment / Q000379:methods*; D020539:Sequence Analysis, Protein / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D011506:Proteins