» Articles » PMID: 27671894

Development of a Motif-based Topology-independent Structure Comparison Method to Identify Evolutionarily Related Folds

Overview
Journal Proteins
Date 2016 Sep 28
PMID 27671894
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Structure conservation, functional similarities, and homologous relationships that exist across diverse protein topologies suggest that some regions of the protein fold universe are continuous. However, the current structure classification systems are based on hierarchical organizations, which cannot accommodate structural relationships that span fold definitions. Here, we describe a novel, super-secondary-structure motif-based, topology-independent structure comparison method (SmotifCOMP) that is able to quantitatively identify structural relationships between disparate topologies. The basis of SmotifCOMP is a systematically defined super-secondary-structure motif library whose representative geometries are shown to be saturated in the Protein Data Bank and exhibit a unique distribution within the known folds. SmotifCOMP offers a robust and quantitative technique to compare domains that adopt different topologies since the method does not rely on a global superposition. SmotifCOMP is used to perform an exhaustive comparison of the known folds and the identified relationships are used to produce a nonhierarchical representation of the fold space that reflects the notion of a continuous and connected fold universe. The current work offers insight into previously hypothesized evolutionary relationships between disparate folds and provides a resource for exploring novel ones. Proteins 2016; 84:1859-1874. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Citing Articles

Universal Architectural Concepts Underlying Protein Folding Patterns.

Konagurthu A, Subramanian R, Allison L, Abramson D, Stuckey P, Garcia de la Banda M Front Mol Biosci. 2021; 7:612920.

PMID: 33996891 PMC: 8120156. DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.612920.


Inferring RPW8-NLRs's evolution patterns in seed plants: case study in Vitis vinifera.

Andolfo G, Villano C, Errico A, Frusciante L, Carputo D, Aversano R Planta. 2019; 251(1):32.

PMID: 31823009 DOI: 10.1007/s00425-019-03324-x.

References
1.
Goldstein R . The structure of protein evolution and the evolution of protein structure. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2008; 18(2):170-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2008.01.006. View

2.
Chaudhuri I, Soding J, Lupas A . Evolution of the beta-propeller fold. Proteins. 2007; 71(2):795-803. DOI: 10.1002/prot.21764. View

3.
Menon V, Vallat B, Dybas J, Fiser A . Modeling proteins using a super-secondary structure library and NMR chemical shift information. Structure. 2013; 21(6):891-9. PMC: 3703203. DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2013.04.012. View

4.
Khafizov K, Madrid-Aliste C, Almo S, Fiser A . Trends in structural coverage of the protein universe and the impact of the Protein Structure Initiative. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(10):3733-8. PMC: 3956173. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1321614111. View

5.
Koga N, Tatsumi-Koga R, Liu G, Xiao R, Acton T, Montelione G . Principles for designing ideal protein structures. Nature. 2012; 491(7423):222-7. PMC: 3705962. DOI: 10.1038/nature11600. View