Coverage of Whole Proteome by Structural Genomics Observed Through Protein Homology Modeling Database

Overview

Journal J Struct Funct Genomics

Specialty Genetics

Date 2006 Dec 6

PMID 17146617

Citations 8

Authors

Kei Yura

Akihiro Yamaguchi

Mitiko Go

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

We have been developing FAMSBASE, a protein homology-modeling database of whole ORFs predicted from genome sequences. The latest update of FAMSBASE ( http://daisy.nagahama-i-bio.ac.jp/Famsbase/ ), which is based on the protein three-dimensional (3D) structures released by November 2003, contains modeled 3D structures for 368,724 open reading frames (ORFs) derived from genomes of 276 species, namely 17 archaebacterial, 130 eubacterial, 18 eukaryotic and 111 phage genomes. Those 276 genomes are predicted to have 734,193 ORFs in total and the current FAMSBASE contains protein 3D structure of approximately 50% of the ORF products. However, cases that a modeled 3D structure covers the whole part of an ORF product are rare. When portion of an ORF with 3D structure is compared in three kingdoms of life, in archaebacteria and eubacteria, approximately 60% of the ORFs have modeled 3D structures covering almost the entire amino acid sequences, however, the percentage falls to about 30% in eukaryotes. When annual differences in the number of ORFs with modeled 3D structure are calculated, the fraction of modeled 3D structures of soluble protein for archaebacteria is increased by 5%, and that for eubacteria by 7% in the last 3 years. Assuming that this rate would be maintained and that determination of 3D structures for predicted disordered regions is unattainable, whole soluble protein model structures of prokaryotes without the putative disordered regions will be in hand within 15 years. For eukaryotic proteins, they will be in hand within 25 years. The 3D structures we will have at those times are not the 3D structure of the entire proteins encoded in single ORFs, but the 3D structures of separate structural domains. Measuring or predicting spatial arrangements of structural domains in an ORF will then be a coming issue of structural genomics.

Citing Articles

NMR in structural genomics to increase structural coverage of the protein universe: Delivered by Prof. Kurt Wüthrich on 7 July 2013 at the 38th FEBS Congress in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Serrano P, Dutta S, Proudfoot A, Mohanty B, Susac L, Martin B FEBS J. 2016; 283(21):3870-3881.

PMID: 27154589 PMC: 5099109. DOI: 10.1111/febs.13751.

Plasmodium falciparum malaria: proteomic studies.

Siqueira-Batista R, Gomes A, Mendonca E, Vitorino R, de Azevedo S, Freitas R Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2013; 24(4):394-400.

PMID: 23917939 PMC: 4031808. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-507x2012000400017.

Bacteriophage protein-protein interactions.

Hauser R, Blasche S, Dokland T, Haggard-Ljungquist E, von Brunn A, Salas M Adv Virus Res. 2012; 83:219-98.

PMID: 22748812 PMC: 3461333. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394438-2.00006-2.

Revisiting gap locations in amino acid sequence alignments and a proposal for a method to improve them by introducing solvent accessibility.

Hijikata A, Yura K, Noguti T, Go M Proteins. 2011; 79(6):1868-77.

PMID: 21465562 PMC: 3110861. DOI: 10.1002/prot.23011.

The utility of geometrical and chemical restraint information extracted from predicted ligand-binding sites in protein structure refinement.

Brylinski M, Lee S, Zhou H, Skolnick J J Struct Biol. 2010; 173(3):558-69.

PMID: 20850544 PMC: 3036769. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsb.2010.09.009.

References

Burley S, Bonanno J . Structuring the universe of proteins. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2002; 3:243-62. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genom.3.022502.103227. View

Dyson H, Wright P . Intrinsically unstructured proteins and their functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005; 6(3):197-208. DOI: 10.1038/nrm1589. View

John B, Sali A . Comparative protein structure modeling by iterative alignment, model building and model assessment. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31(14):3982-92. PMC: 165975. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkg460. View

Doolittle R . The multiplicity of domains in proteins. Annu Rev Biochem. 1995; 64:287-314. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.bi.64.070195.001443. View

Lo Conte L, Brenner S, Hubbard T, Chothia C, Murzin A . SCOP database in 2002: refinements accommodate structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001; 30(1):264-7. PMC: 99154. DOI: 10.1093/nar/30.1.264. View

Oldfield C, Ulrich E, Cheng Y, Dunker A, Markley J . Addressing the intrinsic disorder bottleneck in structural proteomics. Proteins. 2005; 59(3):444-53. DOI: 10.1002/prot.20446. View

Liu G, Li Z, Chiang Y, Acton T, Montelione G, Murray D . High-quality homology models derived from NMR and X-ray structures of E. coli proteins YgdK and Suf E suggest that all members of the YgdK/Suf E protein family are enhancers of cysteine desulfurases. Protein Sci. 2005; 14(6):1597-608. PMC: 2253389. DOI: 10.1110/ps.041322705. View

Yokoyama S, Hirota H, Kigawa T, Yabuki T, Shirouzu M, Terada T . Structural genomics projects in Japan. Nat Struct Biol. 2000; 7 Suppl:943-5. DOI: 10.1038/80712. View

Wallace I, Blackshields G, Higgins D . Multiple sequence alignments. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2005; 15(3):261-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2005.04.002. View

10.

Linding R, Jensen L, Diella F, Bork P, Gibson T, Russell R . Protein disorder prediction: implications for structural proteomics. Structure. 2003; 11(11):1453-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2003.10.002. View

11.

Lichtarge O, Sowa M . Evolutionary predictions of binding surfaces and interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2002; 12(1):21-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-440x(02)00284-1. View

12.

Petrey D, Honig B . Protein structure prediction: inroads to biology. Mol Cell. 2005; 20(6):811-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.12.005. View

13.

Kim S . Structural genomics of microbes: an objective. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2000; 10(3):380-3. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-440x(00)00100-7. View

14.

Xie L, Bourne P . Functional coverage of the human genome by existing structures, structural genomics targets, and homology models. PLoS Comput Biol. 2005; 1(3):e31. PMC: 1188274. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010031. View

15.

Orengo C, Pearl F, Bray J, Todd A, Martin A, Lo Conte L . The CATH Database provides insights into protein structure/function relationships. Nucleic Acids Res. 1998; 27(1):275-9. PMC: 148155. DOI: 10.1093/nar/27.1.275. View

16.

Stuart A, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A . Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 2000; 29:291-325. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.29.1.291. View

17.

Kim S, Shin D, Choi I, Schulze-Gahmen U, Chen S, Kim R . Structure-based functional inference in structural genomics. J Struct Funct Genomics. 2003; 4(2-3):129-35. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026200610644. View

18.

Kyogoku Y, Fujiyoshi Y, Shimada I, Nakamura H, Tsukihara T, Akutsu H . Structural genomics of membrane proteins. Acc Chem Res. 2003; 36(3):199-206. DOI: 10.1021/ar0101279. View

19.

Dobrovetsky E, Lu M, Andorn-Broza R, Khutoreskaya G, Bray J, Savchenko A . High-throughput production of prokaryotic membrane proteins. J Struct Funct Genomics. 2005; 6(1):33-50. DOI: 10.1007/s10969-005-1363-5. View

20.

Leipe D, Koonin E, Aravind L . Evolution and classification of P-loop kinases and related proteins. J Mol Biol. 2003; 333(4):781-815. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2003.08.040. View