Structural footprinting in protein structure comparison: the impact of structural fragments.
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.
Zotenko
Elena
E
Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA. zotenko@mail.nih.gov
Dogan
Rezarta Islamaj
RI
Wilbur
W John
WJ
O'Leary
Dianne P
DP
Przytycka
Teresa M
TM
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
Protein Eng. 2000 Mar;13(3):153-65
10775657
BMC Struct Biol. 2006;6:12
16762072
J Mol Biol. 2002 Nov 8;323(5):909-26
12417203
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jan 7;100(1):119-24
12506205
Math Biosci. 2003 Apr;182(2):167-81
12591623
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 16;101(11):3797-802
14985506
Proteins. 2004 Aug 15;56(3):487-501
15229882
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971 Apr;68(4):815-9
5279522
Biopolymers. 1983 Dec;22(12):2577-637
6667333
J Mol Biol. 1993 Sep 5;233(1):123-38
8377180
J Mol Biol. 1995 Apr 7;247(4):536-40
7723011
Methods Enzymol. 1996;266:617-35
8743709
Structure. 1997 Aug 15;5(8):1093-108
9309224
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1999 Jun;63(2):479-506
10357859
Protein Eng Des Sel. 2005 Mar;18(3):127-37
15820977
Bioinformatics. 2005 Aug 1;21(15):3322-3
15914542
Structure. 2005 Aug;13(8):1213-24
16084393
Comput Chem. 1996 Mar;20(1):25-33
16718863
J Mol Biol. 2006 Jul 14;360(3):725-41
16780872
BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:206
16613604
J Mol Biol. 2002 Jan 25;315(4):887-98
11812155