Who Watches the Watchmen? An Appraisal of Benchmarks for Multiple Sequence Alignment

Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) is a fundamental and ubiquitous technique in bioinformatics used to infer related residues among biological sequences. Thus alignment accuracy is crucial to a vast range of analyses, often in ways difficult to assess in those analyses. To compare the performance of different aligners and help detect systematic errors in alignments, a number of benchmarking strategies have been pursued. Here we present an overview of the main strategies--based on simulation, consistency, protein structure, and phylogeny--and discuss their different advantages and associated risks. We outline a set of desirable characteristics for effective benchmarking, and evaluate each strategy in light of them. We conclude that there is currently no universally applicable means of benchmarking MSA, and that developers and users of alignment tools should base their choice of benchmark depending on the context of application--with a keen awareness of the assumptions underlying each benchmarking strategy.Comment: Revie

Fr-TM-align: a new protein structural alignment method based on fragment alignments and the TM-score

©2008 Pandit and Skolnick; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/9/531doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-531Background: Protein tertiary structure comparisons are employed in various fields of contemporary structural biology. Most structure comparison methods involve generation of an initial seed alignment, which is extended and/or refined to provide the best structural superposition between a pair of protein structures as assessed by a structure comparison metric. One such metric, the TM-score, was recently introduced to provide a combined structure quality measure of the coordinate root mean square deviation between a pair of structures and coverage. Using the TM-score, the TM-align structure alignment algorithm was developed that was often found to have better accuracy and coverage than the most commonly used structural alignment programs; however, there were a number of situations when this was not true. Results: To further improve structure alignment quality, the Fr-TM-align algorithm has been developed where aligned fragment pairs are used to generate the initial seed alignments that are then refined using dynamic programming to maximize the TM-score. For the assessment of the structural alignment quality from Fr-TM-align in comparison to other programs such as CE and TMalign, we examined various alignment quality assessment scores such as PSI and TM-score. The assessment showed that the structural alignment quality from Fr-TM-align is better in comparison to both CE and TM-align. On average, the structural alignments generated using Fr-TM-align have a higher TM-score (~9%) and coverage (~7%) in comparison to those generated by TM-align. Fr- TM-align uses an exhaustive procedure to generate initial seed alignments. Hence, the algorithm is computationally more expensive than TM-align. Conclusion: Fr-TM-align, a new algorithm that employs fragment alignment and assembly provides better structural alignments in comparison to TM-align. The source code and executables of Fr- TM-align are freely downloadable at: http://cssb.biology.gatech.edu/skolnick/files/FrTMalign/

Towards Reliable Automatic Protein Structure Alignment

A variety of methods have been proposed for structure similarity calculation, which are called structure alignment or superposition. One major shortcoming in current structure alignment algorithms is in their inherent design, which is based on local structure similarity. In this work, we propose a method to incorporate global information in obtaining optimal alignments and superpositions. Our method, when applied to optimizing the TM-score and the GDT score, produces significantly better results than current state-of-the-art protein structure alignment tools. Specifically, if the highest TM-score found by TMalign is lower than (0.6) and the highest TM-score found by one of the tested methods is higher than (0.5), there is a probability of (42%) that TMalign failed to find TM-scores higher than (0.5), while the same probability is reduced to (2%) if our method is used. This could significantly improve the accuracy of fold detection if the cutoff TM-score of (0.5) is used. In addition, existing structure alignment algorithms focus on structure similarity alone and simply ignore other important similarities, such as sequence similarity. Our approach has the capacity to incorporate multiple similarities into the scoring function. Results show that sequence similarity aids in finding high quality protein structure alignments that are more consistent with eye-examined alignments in HOMSTRAD. Even when structure similarity itself fails to find alignments with any consistency with eye-examined alignments, our method remains capable of finding alignments highly similar to, or even identical to, eye-examined alignments.Comment: Peer-reviewed and presented as part of the 13th Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics (WABI2013

Identification of functionally related enzymes by learning-to-rank methods

Enzyme sequences and structures are routinely used in the biological sciences as queries to search for functionally related enzymes in online databases. To this end, one usually departs from some notion of similarity, comparing two enzymes by looking for correspondences in their sequences, structures or surfaces. For a given query, the search operation results in a ranking of the enzymes in the database, from very similar to dissimilar enzymes, while information about the biological function of annotated database enzymes is ignored. In this work we show that rankings of that kind can be substantially improved by applying kernel-based learning algorithms. This approach enables the detection of statistical dependencies between similarities of the active cleft and the biological function of annotated enzymes. This is in contrast to search-based approaches, which do not take annotated training data into account. Similarity measures based on the active cleft are known to outperform sequence-based or structure-based measures under certain conditions. We consider the Enzyme Commission (EC) classification hierarchy for obtaining annotated enzymes during the training phase. The results of a set of sizeable experiments indicate a consistent and significant improvement for a set of similarity measures that exploit information about small cavities in the surface of enzymes

Structure and functional motifs of GCR1, the only plant protein with a GPCR fold?

Whether GPCRs exist in plants is a fundamental biological question. Interest in deorphanizing new G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), arises because of their importance in signaling. Within plants, this is controversial as genome analysis has identified 56 putative GPCRs, including GCR1 which is reportedly a remote homologue to class A, B and E GPCRs. Of these, GCR2, is not a GPCR; more recently it has been proposed that none are, not even GCR1. We have addressed this disparity between genome analysis and biological evidence through a structural bioinformatics study, involving fold recognition methods, from which only GCR1 emerges as a strong candidate. To further probe GCR1, we have developed a novel helix alignment method, which has been benchmarked against the the class A – class B - class F GPCR alignments. In addition, we have presented a mutually consistent set of alignments of GCR1 homologues to class A, class B and class F GPCRs, and shown that GCR1 is closer to class A and /or class B GPCRs than class A, class B or class F GPCRs are to each other. To further probe GCR1, we have aligned transmembrane helix 3 of GCR1 to each of the 6 GPCR classes. Variability comparisons provide additional evidence that GCR1 homologues have the GPCR fold. From the alignments and a GCR1 comparative model we have identified motifs that are common to GCR1, class A, B and E GPCRs. We discuss the possibilities that emerge from this controversial evidence that GCR1 has a GPCR fol

Of bits and bugs

Pur-α is a nucleic acid-binding protein involved in cell cycle control, transcription, and neuronal function. Initially no prediction of the three-dimensional structure of Pur-α was possible. However, recently we solved the X-ray structure of Pur-α from the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster and showed that it contains a so-called PUR domain. Here we explain how we exploited bioinformatics tools in combination with X-ray structure determination of a bacterial homolog to obtain diffracting crystals and the high-resolution structure of Drosophila Pur-α. First, we used sensitive methods for remote-homology detection to find three repetitive regions in Pur-α. We realized that our lack of understanding how these repeats interact to form a globular domain was a major problem for crystallization and structure determination. With our information on the repeat motifs we then identified a distant bacterial homolog that contains only one repeat. We determined the bacterial crystal structure and found that two of the repeats interact to form a globular domain. Based on this bacterial structure, we calculated a computational model of the eukaryotic protein. The model allowed us to design a crystallizable fragment and to determine the structure of Drosophila Pur-α. Key for success was the fact that single repeats of the bacterial protein self-assembled into a globular domain, instructing us on the number and boundaries of repeats to be included for crystallization trials with the eukaryotic protein. This study demonstrates that the simpler structural domain arrangement of a distant prokaryotic protein can guide the design of eukaryotic crystallization constructs. Since many eukaryotic proteins contain multiple repeats or repeating domains, this approach might be instructive for structural studies of a range of proteins

Exploring deep phylogenies using protein structure : a dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biochemistry, Institute of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand

Recent times have seen an exponential growth in protein sequence and structure data. The most popular way of characterising newly determined protein sequences is to compare them to well characterised sequences and predict the function of novel sequences based on homology. This practice has been highly successful for a majority of proteins. However, these sequence based methods struggle with certain deeply diverging proteins and hence cannot always recover evolutionary histories. Another feature of proteins, namely their structures, has been shown to retain evolutionary signals over longer time scales compared to the respective sequences that encode them. The structure therefore presents an opportunity to uncover the evolutionary signal that otherwise escapes conventional sequence-based methods. Structural phylogenetics refers to the comparison of protein structures to extract evolutionary relationships. The area of structural phylogenetics has been around for a number of years and multiple approaches exist to delineate evolutionary relationships from protein structures. However, once the relationships have been recovered from protein structural data, no methods exist, at present, to verify the robustness of these relationships. Because of the nature of the structural data, conventional sequence-based methods, e.g. bootstrapping, cannot be applied. This work introduces the first ever use of a molecular dynamics (MD)-based bootstrap method, which can add a measure of significance to the relationships inferred from the structure-based analysis. This work begins in Chapter 2 by thoroughly investigating the use of a protein structural comparison metric Qscore, which has previously been used to generate structural phylogenies, and highlights its strengths and weaknesses. The mechanistic exploration of the structural comparison metric reveals a size difference limit of no more than 5-10% in the sizes of protein structures being compared for accurate phylogenetic inference to be made. Chapter 2 also explores the MD-based bootstrap method to offer an interpretation of the significance values recovered. Two protein structural datasets, one relatively more conserved at the sequence level than the other and with different levels of structural conservation are used as controls to simplify the interpretation of the statistics recovered from the MD-based bootstrap method. Chapter 3 then sees the application of the Qscore metric to the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. The aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are believed to have been present at the dawn of life, making them one of the most ancient protein families. Due to the important functional role they play, these proteins are conserved at both sequence and structural levels and well-characterised using both sequence and structure-based comparative methods. This family therefore offered inferences which could be informed with structural analysis using an automated method. Successful recovery of known relationships raised confidence in the ability of structural phylogenetic analysis based on Qscore to detect evolutionary signals. In Chapter 4, a structural phylogeny was created for a protein structural dataset presenting either the histone fold or its ancestral precursor. This structural dataset comprised of proteins that were significantly diverged at a sequence level, however shared a common structural motif. The structural phylogeny recovered the split between bacterial and non-bacterial proteins. Furthermore, TATA protein associated factors were found to have multiple points of origin. Moreover, some mismatch was found between the classifications of these proteins between SCOP and PFam, which also did not agree with the results from this work. Using the structural phylogeny a model outlining the evolution of these proteins was proposed. The structural phylogeny of the Ferritin-like superfamily has previously been generated using the Qscore metric and supported qualitatively. Chapter 5 recovers the structural phylogeny of the Ferritin-like superfamily and finds quantitative support for the inferred relationships from the first ever implementation of the MD-based bootstrap method. The use of the MD-based bootstrap method simultaneously allows for the resolution of polytomies in structural databases. Some limitations of the MD-based bootstrap method, highlighted in Chapter 2, are revisited in Chapter 5. This work indicates that evolutionary signals can be successfully extracted from protein structures for deeply diverging proteins and that the MD-based bootstrap method can be used to gauge the robustness of relationships inferred

Structure- and context-based analysis of the GxGYxYP family reveals a new putative class of glycoside hydrolase.

BackgroundGut microbiome metagenomics has revealed many protein families and domains found largely or exclusively in that environment. Proteins containing the GxGYxYP domain are over-represented in the gut microbiota, and are found in Polysaccharide Utilization Loci in the gut symbiont Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, suggesting their involvement in polysaccharide metabolism, but little else is known of the function of this domain.ResultsGenomic context and domain architecture analyses support a role for the GxGYxYP domain in carbohydrate metabolism. Sparse occurrences in eukaryotes are the result of lateral gene transfer. The structure of the GxGYxYP domain-containing protein encoded by the BT2193 locus reveals two structural domains, the first composed of three divergent repeats with no recognisable homology to previously solved structures, the second a more familiar seven-stranded β/α barrel. Structure-based analyses including conservation mapping localise a presumed functional site to a cleft between the two domains of BT2193. Matching to a catalytic site template from a GH9 cellulase and other analyses point to a putative catalytic triad composed of Glu272, Asp331 and Asp333.ConclusionsWe suggest that GxGYxYP-containing proteins constitute a novel glycoside hydrolase family of as yet unknown specificity