title: Structural footprinting in protein structure comparison: the impact of structural fragments.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  One approach for speeding-up protein structure comparison is the projection approach, where a protein structure is mapped to a high-dimensional vector and structural similarity is approximated by distance between the corresponding vectors. Structural footprinting methods are projection methods that employ the same general technique to produce the mapping: first select a representative set of structural fragments as models and then map a protein structure to a vector in which each dimension corresponds to a particular model and "counts" the number of times the model appears in the structure. The main difference between any two structural footprinting methods is in the set of models they use; in fact a large number of methods can be generated by varying the type of structural fragments used and the amount of detail in their representation. How do these choices affect the ability of the method to detect various types of structural similarity?
  
  
  RESULTS
  To answer this question we benchmarked three structural footprinting methods that vary significantly in their selection of models against the CATH database. In the first set of experiments we compared the methods' ability to detect structural similarity characteristic of evolutionarily related structures, i.e., structures within the same CATH superfamily. In the second set of experiments we tested the methods' agreement with the boundaries imposed by classification groups at the Class, Architecture, and Fold levels of the CATH hierarchy.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In both experiments we found that the method which uses secondary structure information has the best performance on average, but no one method performs consistently the best across all groups at a given classification level. We also found that combining the methods' outputs significantly improves the performance. Moreover, our new techniques to measure and visualize the methods' agreement with the CATH hierarchy, including the threshholded affinity graph, are useful beyond this work. In particular, they can be used to expose a similar composition of different classification groups in terms of structural fragments used by the method and thus provide an alternative demonstration of the continuous nature of the protein structure universe.
authors: Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA. zotenko@mail.nih.gov
authors: Elena
authors: E
authors: Zotenko
authors: Rezarta Islamaj
authors: RI
authors: Dogan
authors: W John
authors: WJ
authors: Wilbur
authors: Dianne P
authors: DP
authors: O'Leary
authors: Teresa M
authors: TM
authors: Przytycka
mesh_terms: D030562:Databases, Protein; D008956:Models, Chemical; D017433:Protein Structure, Secondary; D017434:Protein Structure, Tertiary; D020539:Sequence Analysis, Protein / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D040681:Structural Homology, Protein
references: Protein Eng. 2000 Mar;13(3):153-65
references: 10775657
references: BMC Struct Biol. 2006;6:12
references: 16762072
references: J Mol Biol. 2002 Nov 8;323(5):909-26
references: 12417203
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jan 7;100(1):119-24
references: 12506205
references: Math Biosci. 2003 Apr;182(2):167-81
references: 12591623
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 16;101(11):3797-802
references: 14985506
references: Proteins. 2004 Aug 15;56(3):487-501
references: 15229882
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971 Apr;68(4):815-9
references: 5279522
references: Biopolymers. 1983 Dec;22(12):2577-637
references: 6667333
references: J Mol Biol. 1993 Sep 5;233(1):123-38
references: 8377180
references: J Mol Biol. 1995 Apr 7;247(4):536-40
references: 7723011
references: Methods Enzymol. 1996;266:617-35
references: 8743709
references: Structure. 1997 Aug 15;5(8):1093-108
references: 9309224
references: Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1999 Jun;63(2):479-506
references: 10357859
references: Protein Eng Des Sel. 2005 Mar;18(3):127-37
references: 15820977
references: Bioinformatics. 2005 Aug 1;21(15):3322-3
references: 15914542
references: Structure. 2005 Aug;13(8):1213-24
references: 16084393
references: Comput Chem. 1996 Mar;20(1):25-33
references: 16718863
references: J Mol Biol. 2006 Jul 14;360(3):725-41
references: 16780872
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:206
references: 16613604
references: J Mol Biol. 2002 Jan 25;315(4):887-98
references: 11812155