Advertisement

Molecular Biology

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 652–664 | Cite as

PSI protein classifier: A new program automating PSI-BLAST search results

  • D. G. Naumoff
  • M. Carreras
Mathematical and Systemic Biology

Abstract

A new program, PSI Protein Classifier, generalizing the results of both successive and independent iterations of the PSI-BLAST program was developed. The technical opportunities of the program are described and illustrated by two examples. An iterative screening of the amino acid sequence database detected potential evolutionary relationships between GH5, GH13, GH27, GH31, GH36, GH66, GH101 and GH114 families of glycoside hydrolases. Analysis of the statistically significant sequence similarity (E-value analysis) allowed us to divide the family GH31 into 38 subfamilies.

Key words

PSI-BLAT algorithm sequence analysis glycoside hydrolase GH31 family clan GH-D protein family protein subfamily protein phylogenetic tree protein hierarchical classification gene annotation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Liolios K., Mavromatis K., Tavernarakis N., Kyrpides N.C. 2008. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) in 2007: Status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D475–D479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heger A., Holm L. 2003. Exhaustive enumeration of protein domain families. J. Mol. Biol. 328, 749–767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yeats C., Lees J., Reid A., Kellam P., Martin N., Liu X., Orengo C. 2008. Gene3D: Comprehensive structural and functional annotation of genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D414–D418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marsden R.L., Lee D., Maibaum M., Yeats C., Orengo C.A. 2006. Comprehensive genome analysis of 203 genomes provides structural genomics with new insights into protein family space. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 1066–1080.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mulder N.J., Apweiler R., Attwood T.K., Bairoch A., Bateman A., Binns D., Bork P., Buillard V., Cerutti L., Copley R., Courcelle E., Das U., Daugherty L., Dibley M., Finn R., Fleischmann W., Gough J., Haft D., Hulo N., Hunter S., Kahn D., Kanapin A., Kejariwal A., Labarga A., Langendijk-Genevaux P.S., Lonsdale D., Lopez R., Letunic I., Madera M., Maslen J., McAnulla C., McDowall J., Mistry J., Mitchell A., Nikolskaya A.N., Orchard S., Orengo C., Petryszak R., Selengut J.D., Sigrist C.J., Thomas P.D., Valentin F., Wilson D., Wu C.H., Yeats C. 2007. New developments in the InterPro database. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D224–D228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CluSTr database. 2009. Release 14.2. (http://www. ebi.ac.uk/clustr).
  7. 7.
    The Pfam database. 2008. Pfam 23.0. Release 1.6.1. (http://pfam.sanger.ac.uk).
  8. 8.
    Wallqvist A., Fukunishi Y., Murphy L.R., Fadel A., Levy R.M. 2000. Iterative sequence/secondary structure search for protein homologs: Comparison with amino acid sequence alignments and application to fold recognition in genome databases. Bioinformatics. 16, 988–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meinel T., Krause A., Luz H., Vingron M., Staub E. 2005. The SYSTERS Protein Family Database in 2005. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D226–D229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson D., Madera M., Vogel C., Chothia C., Gough J. 2007. The SUPERFAMILY database in 2007: Families and functions. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D308–D313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holm L. 1998. Unification of protein families. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 8, 372–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mi H., Lazareva-Ulitsky B., Loo R., Kejariwal A., Vandergriff J., Rabkin S., Guo N., Muruganujan A., Doremieux O., Campbell M.J., Kitano H., Thomas P.D. 2005. The PANTHER database of protein families, subfamilies, functions and pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D284–D288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gough J. 2006. Genomic scale sub-family assignment of protein domains. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 3625–3633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petryszak R., Kretschmann E., Wieser D., Apweiler R. 2005. The predictive power of the CluSTr database. Bioinformatics. 21, 3604–3609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heger A., Holm L., Wilton C. 2006. ADDA: Automatic Domain Decomposition Algorithm. Version V4. (http://ekhidna.biocenter.helsinki.fi/sqgraph/pairsdb).
  16. 16.
    Heger A., Wilton C.A., Sivakumar A., Holm L. 2005. ADDA: A domain database with global coverage of the protein universe. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D188–D191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bru C., Courcelle E., Carrère S., Beausse Y., Dalmar S., Kahn D. 2005. The ProDom database of protein domain families: More emphasis on 3D. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D212–D215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park J., Teichmann S.A. 1998. DIVCLUS: An automatic method in the GEANFAMMER package that finds homologous domains in single- and multi-domain proteins. Bioinformatics. 14, 144–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Enright A.J., Ouzounis C.A. 2000. GeneRAGE: A robust algorithm for sequence clustering and domain detection. Bioinformatics. 16, 451–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tatusov R.L., Fedorova N.D., Jackson J.D., Jacobs A.R., Kiryutin B., Koonin E.V., Krylov D.M., Mazumder R., Mekhedov S.L., Nikolskaya A.N., Rao B.S., Smirnov S., Sverdlov A.V., Vasudevan S., Wolf Y.I., Yin J.J., Natale D.A. 2003. The COG database: An updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics. 4, Art. 41.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greene L.H., Lewis T.E., Addou S., Cuff A., Dallman T., Dibley M., Redfern O., Pearl F., Nambudiry R., Reid A., Sillitoe I., Yeats C., Thornton J.M., Orengo C.A. 2007. The CATH domain structure database: New protocols and classification levels give a more comprehensive resource for exploring evolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D291–D297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Finn R.D., Mistry J., Schuster-Böckler B., Griffiths-Jones S., Hollich V., Lassmann T., Moxon S., Marshall M., Khanna A., Durbin R., Eddy S.R., Sonnhammer E.L., Bateman A. 2006. Pfam: Clans, web tools and services. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D247–D251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finn R.D., Tate J., Mistry J., Coggill P.C., Sammut S.J., Hotz H.R., Ceric G., Forslund K., Eddy S.R., Sonnhammer E.L., Bateman A. 2008. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D281–D288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sadreyev R., Grishin N. 2003. COMPASS: A tool for comparison of multiple protein alignments with assessment of statistical significance. J. Mol. Biol. 326, 317–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sadreyev R.I., Baker D., Grishin N.V. 2003. Profile-profile comparisons by COMPASS predict intricate homologies between protein families. Protein Sci. 12, 2262–2272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaplan N., Sasson O., Inbar U., Friedlich M., Fromer M., Fleischer H., Portugaly E., Linial N., Linial M. 2005. ProtoNet 4.0: A hierarchical classification of one million protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D216–D218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carbohydrate-Active Enzymes server. 2009. (http://www.cazy.org).
  28. 28.
    Naumoff D.G. 2001. β-Fructosidase superfamily: homology with some α-L-arabinases and β-D-xylosidases. Prot. Struct. Funct. Genet. 42, 66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naumoff D.G. 2006. Development of a hierarchical classification of the TIM-barrel type glycoside hydrolases. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Bioinformatics of Genome Regulation and Structure, July 16–22, 2006, Novosibirsk, Russia, vol. 1, pp. 294–298 (http://www.bionet.nsc.ru/meeting/bgrs2006/BGRS_ 2006_V1.pdf).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuznetsova A.Y., Naumoff D.G. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of COG1649, a new family of predicted glycosyl hydrolases. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Bioinformatics of Genome Regulation and Structure, July 16–22, 2006, Novosibirsk, Russia, vol. 3, pp. 179–182 (http://www.bionet.nsc.ru/meeting/bgrs2006/BGRS_2006_V3.pdf).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naumoff D.G. 2005. GH97 is a new family of glycoside hydrolases, which is related to the α-galactosidase superfamily. BMC Genomics. 6, Art. 112.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ernst H.A., Leggio L.L., Willemoes M., Leonard G., Blum P., Larsen S. 2006. Structure of the Sulfolobus solfataricus α-glucosidase: implications for domain conservation and substrate recognition in GH31. J. Mol. Biol. 358, 1106–1124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Henrissat B. 1998. Glycosidase families. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 26, 153–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Naumoff D.G. 2001. Sequence analysis of glycosylhydrolases: β-Fructosidase and α-galactosidase superfamilies. Glycoconjugate J. 18, 109.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rigden D.J. 2002. Iterative database searches demonstrate that glycoside hydrolase families 27, 31, 36 and 66 share a common evolutionary origin with family 13. FEBS Lett. 523, 17–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ernst H.A., Leggio L.L., Yu S., Finnie C., Svensson B., Larsen S. 2005. Probing the structure of glucan lyases by sequence analysis, circular dichroism and proteolysis. Biologia (Bratislava). 60(Suppl. 16), 149–159.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Janeček Š., Svensson B., Macgregor E.A. 2007. A remote but significant sequence homology between glycoside hydrolase clan GH-H and family GH31. FEBS Lett. 581, 1261–1268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nagano N., Porter C.T., Thornton J.M. 2001. The (β/α)8 glycosidases: Sequence and structure analyses suggest distant evolutionary relationships. Protein Eng. 14, 845–855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    MacGregor E.A. 2005. An overview of clan GH-H and distantly related families. Biologia (Bratislava). 60(Suppl. 16), 5–12.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rigden D.J., Franco O.L. 2002. β-Helical catalytic domains in glycoside hydrolase families 49, 55 and 87: Domain architecture, modelling and assignment of catalytic residues. FEBS Lett. 530, 225–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rigden D.J., Jedrzejas M.J., de Mello L.V. 2003. Identification and analysis of catalytic TIM barrel domains in seven further glycoside hydrolase families. FEBS Lett. 544, 103–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mian I.S. 1998. Sequence, structural, functional, and phylogenetic analyses of three glycosidase families. Blood Cells Mol. Dis. 24, 83–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Holm L., Sander C. 1994. Structural similarity of plant chitinase and lysozymes from animals and phage. An evolutionary connection. FEBS Lett. 340, 129–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Monzingo A.F., Marcotte E.M., Hart P.J., Robertus J.D. 1996. Chitinases, chitosanases, and lysozymes can be divided into procaryotic and eucaryotic families sharing a conserved core. Nature Struct. Biol. 3, 133–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    MacGregor E.A, Janeček Š., Svensson B. 2001. Relationship of sequence and structure to specificity in the α-amylase family of enzymes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1546, 1–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pei J., Grishin N.V. 2005. COG3926 and COG5526: A tale of two new lysozyme-like protein families. Protein Sci. 14, 2574–2581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stam M.R., Danchin E.G., Rancurel C., Coutinho P.M., Henrissat B. 2006. Dividing the large glycoside hydrolase family 13 into subfamilies: Towards improved functional annotations of α-amylase-related proteins. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 19, 555–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kuenne C.T., Ghai R., Chakraborty T., Hain T. 2007. GECO-linear visualization for comparative genomics. Bioinformatics. 23, 125–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Altschul S.F., Madden T.L., Schäffer A.A., Zhang J., Zhang Z., Miller W., Lipman D.J. 1997. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Carreras M. 2009. Blast Parser: The Excel style viewer (http://geneproject.altervista.org).
  51. 51.
    Naumoff D.G. 2008. The GH31 family of glycoside hydrolases: subfamily structure and evolutionary connections. Abstracts of the Sixth International Conference on Bioinformatics of Genome Regulation and Structure, June 22–28, 2008, Novosibirsk, Russia, p. 169 (http://www.bionet.nsc.ru/meeting/bgrs2008/BGRS2008_Proceedings.pdf).
  52. 52.
    Lovering A.L., Lee S.S., Kim Y.W., Withers S.G., Strynadka N.C. 2005. Mechanistic and structural analy sis of a family 31 α-glycosidase and its glycosyl-enzyme intermediate. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 2105–2115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sim L., Quezada-Calvillo R., Sterchi E.E., Nichols B.L., Rose D.R. 2008. Human intestinal maltase-glucoamylase: crystal structure of the N-terminal catalytic subunit and basis of inhibition and substrate specificity. J. Mol. Biol. 375, 782–792.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Naumoff D.G. 2008. Hierarchical classification of glycosyl hydrolases. Proceedings of the Second International Sci.-Pract. Conf. “The Postgenomic Era in Biology and Problems of Biotechnology,” September 15–16, 2008, Kazan, Russia, pp. 94–95 (http://www.ksu.ru/bio2008/tez_18_09.pdf).
  55. 55.
    Naumoff D.G. 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of α-galactosidases of the GH27 family. Mol. Biol. (Engl. Tr.) 38, 388–399.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Naumoff D.G. 2007. Structure and evolution of the mammalian maltase-glucoamylase and sucrase-isomaltase genes. Mol. Biol. (Engl. Tr.) 41, 962–973.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Caines M.E., Zhu H., Vuckovic M., Willis L.M., Withers S.G., Wakarchuk W.W., Strynadka N.C. 2008. The structural basis for T-antigen hydrolysis by Streptococcus pneumoniae: A target for structure-based vaccine design. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 31279–31283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Research Center GosNIIGenetikaMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations