Advertisement

Maximum Cliques in Protein Structure Comparison

  • Noël Malod-Dognin
  • Rumen Andonov
  • Nicola Yanev
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6049)

Abstract

Computing the similarity between two protein structures is a crucial task in molecular biology, and has been extensively investigated. Many protein structure comparison methods can be modeled as maximum clique problems in specific k-partite graphs, referred here as alignment graphs. In this paper, we propose a new protein structure comparison method based on internal distances (DAST), which main characteristic is that it generates alignments having RMSD smaller than any previously given threshold. DAST is posed as a maximum clique problem in an alignment graph, and in order to compute DAST’s alignments, we also design an algorithm (ACF) for solving such maximum clique problems. We compare ACF with one of the fastest clique finder, recently conceived by Östergȧrd. On a popular benchmark (the Skolnick set) we observe that ACF is about 20 times faster in average than the Östergȧrd’s algorithm. We then successfully use DAST’s alignments to obtain automatic classification in very good agreement with SCOP.

Keywords

protein structure comparison maximum clique problem k-partite graphs combinatorial optimization branch and bound 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Godzik, A.: The structural alignment between two proteins: Is there a unique answer? Protein Science (7), 1325–1338 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sierk, M., Kleywegt, G.: Déjà vu all over again: Finding and analyzing protein structure similarities. Structure 12(12), 2103–2111 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Konc, J., Janezic, D.: An efficient branch-and-bound algorithm for finding a maximum clique. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 58, 220 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tomita, E., Seki, T.: An improved branch and bound algorithm for the maximum clique problem. Communications in Mathematical and in Computer Chemistry / MATCH 58, 569–590 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Östergård, P.R.J.: A fast algorithm for the maximum clique problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 120(1-3), 197–207 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andreeva, A., Howorth, D., Chandonia, J.M., Brenner, S., Hubbard, T., Chothia, C., Murzin, A.: Data growth and its impact on the SCOP database: new developments. Nucl. Acids Res. 36, 419–425 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strickland, D., Barnes, E., Sokol, J.: Optimal protein structure alignment using maximum cliques. Oper. Res. 53(3), 389–402 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karp, R.: Reducibility among combinatorial problems. Complexity of Computer Computations 6, 85–103 (1972)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bomze, I., Budinich, M., Pardalos, P., Pelillo, M.: The maximum clique problem. Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibrat, J.F., Madej, T., Bryant, S.: Surprising similarities in structure comparison. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 6, 377–385 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Godzik, A., Skolnick, J.: Flexible algorithm for direct multiple alignment of protein structures and sequences. CABIOS 10, 587–596 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andonov, R., Yanev, N., Malod-Dognin, N.: An efficient lagrangian relaxation for the contact map overlap problem. In: Crandall, K.A., Lagergren, J. (eds.) WABI 2008. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 5251, pp. 162–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caprara, A., Carr, R., Israil, S., Lancia, G., Walenz, B.: 1001 optimal PDB structure alignments: integer programming methods for finding the maximum contact map overlap. J. Comput. Biol. 11(1), 27–52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fredman, M.: On computing the length of longest increasing subsequences. Discrete Mathematics 11, 29–35 (1975)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin, J., Letellier, G., Marin, A., Taly, J.F., de Brevern, A., Gibrat, J.F.: Protein secondary structure assignment revisited: a detailed analysis of different assignment methods. BMC Structural Biology 5, 17 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lancia, G., Carr, R., Walenz, B., Istrail, S.: 101 optimal pdb structure alignments: a branch-and-cut algorithm for the maximum contact map overlap problem. In: RECOMB 2001: Proceedings of the fifth annual international conference on Computational biology, pp. 193–202 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lerman, I.: Likelihood linkage analysis (lla) classification method (around an example treated by hand). Biochimie 75(5), 379–397 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noël Malod-Dognin
    • 1
  • Rumen Andonov
    • 2
  • Nicola Yanev
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.South-West University “Neofit Rilski”BlagoevgradBulgaria
  2. 2.INRIA Rennes - Bretagne Atlantique and University of Rennes 1France
  3. 3.Faculty of Mathematics and InformaticsUniversity of SofiaBulgaria
  4. 4.Institute of Mathematics and InformaticsBulgarian Academy of Sciences 

Personalised recommendations