Application of protein structure alignments to iterated hidden Markov model protocols for structure prediction.

BackgroundOne of the most powerful methods for the prediction of protein structure from sequence information alone is the iterative construction of profile-type models. Because profiles are built from sequence alignments, the sequences included in the alignment and the method used to align them will be important to the sensitivity of the resulting profile. The inclusion of highly diverse sequences will presumably produce a more powerful profile, but distantly related sequences can be difficult to align accurately using only sequence information. Therefore, it would be expected that the use of protein structure alignments to improve the selection and alignment of diverse sequence homologs might yield improved profiles. However, the actual utility of such an approach has remained unclear.ResultsWe explored several iterative protocols for the generation of profile hidden Markov models. These protocols were tailored to allow the inclusion of protein structure alignments in the process, and were used for large-scale creation and benchmarking of structure alignment-enhanced models. We found that models using structure alignments did not provide an overall improvement over sequence-only models for superfamily-level structure predictions. However, the results also revealed that the structure alignment-enhanced models were complimentary to the sequence-only models, particularly at the edge of the "twilight zone". When the two sets of models were combined, they provided improved results over sequence-only models alone. In addition, we found that the beneficial effects of the structure alignment-enhanced models could not be realized if the structure-based alignments were replaced with sequence-based alignments. Our experiments with different iterative protocols for sequence-only models also suggested that simple protocol modifications were unable to yield equivalent improvements to those provided by the structure alignment-enhanced models. Finally, we found that models using structure alignments provided fold-level structure assignments that were superior to those produced by sequence-only models.ConclusionWhen attempting to predict the structure of remote homologs, we advocate a combined approach in which both traditional models and models incorporating structure alignments are used

Enhanced protein domain discovery using taxonomy

BACKGROUND: It is well known that different species have different protein domain repertoires, and indeed that some protein domains are kingdom specific. This information has not yet been incorporated into statistical methods for finding domains in sequences of amino acids. RESULTS: We show that by incorporating our understanding of the taxonomic distribution of specific protein domains, we can enhance domain recognition in protein sequences. We identify 4447 new instances of Pfam domains in the SP-TREMBL database using this technique, equivalent to the coverage increase given by the last 8.3% of Pfam families and to a 0.7% increase in the number of domain predictions. We use PSI-BLAST to cross-validate our new predictions. We also benchmark our approach using a SCOP test set of proteins of known structure, and demonstrate improvements relative to standard Hidden Markov model techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Explicitly including knowledge about the taxonomic distribution of protein domains can enhance protein domain recognition. Our method can also incorporate other context-specific domain distributions – such as domain co-occurrence and protein localisation

Hidden Markov model speed heuristic and iterative HMM search procedure

BACKGROUND: Profile hidden Markov models (profile-HMMs) are sensitive tools for remote protein homology detection, but the main scoring algorithms, Viterbi or Forward, require considerable time to search large sequence databases. RESULTS: We have designed a series of database filtering steps, HMMERHEAD, that are applied prior to the scoring algorithms, as implemented in the HMMER package, in an effort to reduce search time. Using this heuristic, we obtain a 20-fold decrease in Forward and a 6-fold decrease in Viterbi search time with a minimal loss in sensitivity relative to the unfiltered approaches. We then implemented an iterative profile-HMM search method, JackHMMER, which employs the HMMERHEAD heuristic. Due to our search heuristic, we eliminated the subdatabase creation that is common in current iterative profile-HMM approaches. On our benchmark, JackHMMER detects 14% more remote protein homologs than SAM's iterative method T2K. CONCLUSIONS: Our search heuristic, HMMERHEAD, significantly reduces the time needed to score a profile-HMM against large sequence databases. This search heuristic allowed us to implement an iterative profile-HMM search method, JackHMMER, which detects significantly more remote protein homologs than SAM's T2K and NCBI's PSI-BLAST

Analysis of superfamily specific profile-profile recognition accuracy

BACKGROUND: Annotation of sequences that share little similarity to sequences of known function remains a major obstacle in genome annotation. Some of the best methods of detecting remote relationships between protein sequences are based on matching sequence profiles. We analyse the superfamily specific performance of sequence profile-profile matching. Our benchmark consists of a set of 16 protein superfamilies that are highly diverse at the sequence level. We relate the performance to the number of sequences in the profiles, the profile diversity and the extent of structural conservation in the superfamily. RESULTS: The performance varies greatly between superfamilies with the truncated receiver operating characteristic, ROC(10), varying from 0.95 down to 0.01. These large differences persist even when the profiles are trimmed to approximately the same level of diversity. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of sequences in the profile (profile width) and degree of sequence variation within positions in the profile (profile diversity) contribute to accurate detection there are other superfamily specific factors

EVEREST: a collection of evolutionary conserved protein domains

Protein domains are subunits of proteins that recur throughout the protein world. There are many definitions attempting to capture the essence of a protein domain, and several systems that identify protein domains and classify them into families. EVEREST, recently described in Portugaly et al. (2006) BMC Bioinformatics, 7, 277, is one such system that performs the task automatically, using protein sequence alone. Herein we describe EVEREST release 2.0, consisting of 20 029 families, each defined by one or more HMMs. The current EVEREST database was constructed by scanning UniProt 8.1 and all PDB sequences (total over 3 000 000 sequences) with each of the EVEREST families. EVEREST annotates 64% of all sequences, and covers 59% of all residues. EVEREST is available at . The website provides annotations given by SCOP, CATH, Pfam A and EVEREST. It allows for browsing through the families of each of those sources, graphically visualizing the domain organization of the proteins in the family. The website also provides access to analyzes of relationships between domain families, within and across domain definition systems. Users can upload sequences for analysis by the set of EVEREST families. Finally an advanced search form allows querying for families matching criteria regarding novelty, phylogenetic composition and more