Dataset Information

Comparative analysis of protein structure alignments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several methods are currently available for the comparison of protein structures. These methods have been analysed regarding the performance in the identification of structurally/evolutionary related proteins, but so far there has been less focus on the objective comparison between the alignments produced by different methods.

Results

We analysed and compared the structural alignments obtained by different methods using three sets of pairs of structurally related proteins. The first set corresponds to 355 pairs of remote homologous proteins according to the SCOP database (ASTRAL40 set). The second set was derived from the SISYPHUS database and includes 69 protein pairs (SISY set). The third set consists of 40 pairs that are challenging to align (RIPC set). The alignment of pairs of this set requires indels of considerable number and size and some of the proteins are related by circular permutations, show extensive conformational variability or include repetitions. Two standard methods (CE and DALI) were applied to align the proteins in the ASTRAL40 set. The extent of structural similarity identified by both methods is highly correlated and the alignments from the two methods agree on average in more than half of the aligned positions. CE, DALI, as well as four additional methods (FATCAT, MATRAS, Calpha-match and SHEBA) were then compared using the SISY and RIPC sets. The accuracy of the alignments was assessed by comparison to reference alignments. The alignments generated by the different methods on average match more than half of the reference alignments in the SISY set. The alignments obtained in the more challenging RIPC set tend to differ considerably and match reference alignments less successfully than the SISY set alignments.

Conclusion

The alignments produced by different methods tend to agree to a considerable extent, but the agreement is lower for the more challenging pairs. The results for the comparison to reference alignments are encouraging, but also indicate that there is still room for improvement.

SUBMITTER: Mayr G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1959231 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative analysis of protein structure alignments.

Mayr Gabriele G Domingues Francisco S FS Lackner Peter P

BMC structural biology 20070726

<h4>Background</h4>Several methods are currently available for the comparison of protein structures. These methods have been analysed regarding the performance in the identification of structurally/evolutionary related proteins, but so far there has been less focus on the objective comparison between the alignments produced by different methods.<h4>Results</h4>We analysed and compared the structural alignments obtained by different methods using three sets of pairs of structurally related protei ...[more]

PMID: 17672887

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProtein pairs that have the same secondary structure packing arrangement but have different topologies have attracted much attention in terms of both evolution and physical chemistry of protein structures. Further investigation of such protein relationships would give us a hint as to how proteins can change their fold in the course of evolution, as well as a insight into physico-chemical properties of secondary structure packing. For this purpose, highly accurate sequence order independent structure comparison methods are needed.ResultsWe have developed a novel protein structure alignment algorithm, MICAN (a structure alignment algorithm that can handle Multiple-chain complexes, Inverse direction of secondary structures, Cα only models, Alternative alignments, and Non-sequential alignments). The algorithm was designed so as to identify the best structural alignment between protein pairs by disregarding the connectivity between secondary structure elements (SSE). One of the key feature of the algorithm is utilizing the multiple vector representation for each SSE, which enables us to correctly treat bent or twisted nature of long SSE. We compared MICAN with other 9 publicly available structure alignment programs, using both reference-dependent and reference-independent evaluation methods on a variety of benchmark test sets which include both sequential and non-sequential alignments. We show that MICAN outperforms the other existing methods for reproducing reference alignments of non-sequential test sets. Further, although MICAN does not specialize in sequential structure alignment, it showed the top level performance on the sequential test sets. We also show that MICAN program is the fastest non-sequential structure alignment program among all the programs we examined here.ConclusionsMICAN is the fastest and the most accurate program among non-sequential alignment programs we examined here. These results suggest that MICAN is a highly effective tool for automatically detecting non-trivial structural relationships of proteins, such as circular permutations and segment-swapping, many of which have been identified manually by human experts so far. The source code of MICAN is freely download-able at http://www.tbp.cse.nagoya-u.ac.jp/MICAN.

Dataset Information

Comparative analysis of protein structure alignments.

Background

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparative analysis of protein structure alignments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets