Journal of Protein Chemistry

, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 729–738 | Cite as

An Intriguing Controversy over Protein Structural Class Prediction

  • Guo-Ping Zhou
Article

Abstract

A recent report by Bahar et al. [(1997), Proteins29, 172–185] indicates that the coupling effects among different amino acid components as originally formulated by K. C. Chou [(1995), Proteins21, 319–344] are important for improving the prediction of protein structural classes. These authors have further proposed a compact lattice model to illuminate the physical insight contained in the component-coupled algorithm. However, a completely opposite result was concluded by Eisenhaber et al. [(1996), Proteins 25, 169–179], using a different dataset constructed according to their definition. To address such an intriguing controversy, tests were conducted by various approaches for the datasets from an objective database, the SCOP database [Murzin et al. (1995), J. Mol. Biol.247, 536–540]. The results obtained by both self-consistency and jackknife tests indicate that the overall rates of correct prediction by the algorithm incorporating the coupling effect among different amino acid components are significantly higher than those by the algorithms without counting such an effect. This is fully consistent with the physical reality that the folding of a protein is the result of a collective interaction among its constituent amino acid residues, and hence the coupling effects of different amino acid components must be incorporated in order to improve the prediction quality. It was found by a revisiting the calculation procedures by Eisenhaber et al. that there was a conceptual mistake in constructing the structural class datasets and a systematic mistake in applying the component-coupled algorithm. These findings are informative for understanding and utilizing the component-coupled algorithm to study the structural classes of proteins.

Amino acid composition component-coupled algorithm compact lattice model SCOP database 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bahar, I., Atilgan, A. R., Jernigan, R. L., and Erman, B. (1997). Understanding the recognition of protein structural classes by amino acid composition, Proteins 29, 172–185.Google Scholar
  2. Chandonia, J. M., and Karplus, M. (1995). Neural networks for secondary structure and structural class prediction, Protein Sci. 4, 275–285.Google Scholar
  3. Chou, K. C. (1995). A novel approach to predicting protein structural classes in a (20 -- 1)-D amino acid composition space, Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 21, 319–344.Google Scholar
  4. Chou, K. C., and Zhang, C. T. (1995). Prediction of protein structural classes, Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mole. Biol. 30, 275–349.Google Scholar
  5. Chou, P. Y. (1980). Amino acid composition of four classes of proteins, In Abstracts of Papers, Part I, Second Chemical Congress of the North American Continent, Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
  6. Chou, P. Y. (1989). Prediction of protein structural classes from amino acid composition, In Prediction of Protein Structure and the Principles of Protein Conformation (Fasman, G. D., ed.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 549–586.Google Scholar
  7. Dubchak, I., Holbrook, S. R., and Kim, S.-H. (1993). Predicting protein secondary structure content: A tandem neural network approach, Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 16, 79–91.Google Scholar
  8. Duda, R. O., and Hart, P. E. (1973). Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis, Wiley, New York, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  9. Eisenhaber, F., Frömmel, C., and Argos, P. (1996). Prediction of secondary structural content of proteins from their amino acid composition alone. II. The paradox with secondary structural class, Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 25, 169–179.Google Scholar
  10. Farber, G. K., and Petsko, G. A. (1990). The evolution of α/β barrel enzymes, TIBS 15, 228–234.Google Scholar
  11. Kabsch, W., Mannherz, H. G., Suck, D., Pai, E. F., and Holms, K. C. (1990). Atomic structure of the actin:DNase 1 complex, Nature 347, 37–44.Google Scholar
  12. Kabsch, W., and Sander, C. (1983). Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features, Biopolymers 22, 2577–2637.Google Scholar
  13. Klein, P., and Delisi, C. (1986). Prediction of protein structural class from amino acid sequence, Biopolymers 25, 1659–1672.Google Scholar
  14. Levitt, M., and Chothia, C. (1976). Structural patterns in globular proteins, Nature 261, 552–557.Google Scholar
  15. Mahalanobis, P. C. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics, Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India 2, 49–55.Google Scholar
  16. Mardia, K. V., Kent, J. T., and Bibby, J. M. (1979) Multivariate Analysis. Academic Press, London, pp. 322 and 381.Google Scholar
  17. Metfessel, B. A., Saurugger, P. N., Connelly, D. P., and Rich, S. T. (1993). Cross-validation of protein structural class prediction using statistical clustering and neural networks, Protein Sci. 2, 1171–1182.Google Scholar
  18. Murzin, A. G., Brenner, S. E., Hubbard, T., and Chothia, C. (1995). SCOP: A structural classification of protein database for the investigation of sequence and structures, J. Mol. Biol. 247, 536–540.Google Scholar
  19. Muskal, S. M., and Kim, S.-H. (1992). Predicting protein secondary structure content: A tandem neural network approach, J. Mol. Biol. 225, 713–727.Google Scholar
  20. Nakashima, H., Nishikawa, K., and Ooi, T. (1986). The folding type of a protein is relevant to the amino acid composition, J. Biochem. 99, 152–162.Google Scholar
  21. Pillai, K. C. S. (1985). Mahalanobis D 2, In Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (Kotz, S., and Johnson, N. L., eds.), Wiley, New York, Vol. 5, pp. 176–181.Google Scholar
  22. Rost, B., and Sander, C. (1994). Combining evolutionary information and neural networks to predict protein secondary structure, Protein Struct. Funct. Genet. 19, 55–72.Google Scholar
  23. Sondek, J., and Shortle, D. (1990). Accomodation of single amino acid insertions by the native state of staphyloccocal nuclease, Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 7, 299–305.Google Scholar
  24. Zhang, C. T., and Chou, K. C. (1992). An optimization approach to predicting protein structural class from amino acid composition, Protein Sci. 1, 401–408.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guo-Ping Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford Magnetic Resonance LabStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations