A Parameterized Algorithm for Protein Structure Alignment

  • Jinbo Xu
  • Feng Jiao
  • Bonnie Berger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3909)


This paper proposes a parameterized algorithm for aligning two protein structures, in the case where one protein structure is represented by a contact map graph and the other by a contact map graph or a distance matrix. If the sequential order of alignment is not required, the time complexity is polynomial in the protein size and exponential with respect to two parameters \(\frac{D_u}{D_l}\) and \(\frac{D_c}{D_l}\), which usually can be treated as constants. In particular, D u is the distance threshold determining if two residues are in contact or not, D c is the maximally allowed distance between two matched residues after two proteins are superimposed, and D l is the minimum inter-residue distance in a typical protein. This result indicates that if both \(\frac{D_u}{D_l}\) and \(\frac{D_c}{D_l}\) are small enough, then there is a polynomial-time approximation scheme for the non-sequential protein structure alignment problem. Empirically, both \(\frac{D_u}{D_l}\) and \(\frac{D_c}{D_l}\) are very small and can be treated as constants. This result clearly demonstrates that the hardness of the contact-map based protein structure alignment problem is related not to protein size but to several parameters, which depend on how the protein structure alignment problem is modeled. The result is achieved by decomposing the protein structure using tree decomposition and discretizing the rigid-body transformation space. We have implemented our algorithm and preliminary experimental results indicate that on a Linux PC, it takes from ten minutes to one hour to align two proteins with approximately 100 residues.


Time Complexity Structure Alignment Tree Decomposition Alignment Score Protein Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Comin, M., Guerra, C., Zanotti, G.: PROuST: a comparison method of three-dimensional structures of proteins using indexing techniques. Journal of Computational Biology 11(6), 1061–1072 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holm, L., Sander, C.: Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. Journal of Molecular Biology 233, 123–138 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexandrov, N.N.: SARFing the PDB. Protein Engineering 9, 727–732 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerstein, M., Levitt, M.: Using iterative dynamic programming to obtain accurate pairwise and multiple alignments of protein structures. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology, pp. 59–67 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh, A.P., Brutlag, D.L.: Hierarchical protein structure superposition using both secondary structure and atomic representations. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology, pp. 284–293 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibrat, J.F., Madej, T., Bryant, S.H.: Surprising similarities in structure comparison. Current Opinion in Structural Biology (6), 377–385 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akutsu, T., Tashimo, H.: Protein structure comparison using representation by line segment sequences. In: Proceedings of Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 1996 (PSB 1996), pp. 25–40 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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, pp. 193–202. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caprara, A., Lancia, G.: Structural alignment of large–size proteins via Lagrangian relaxation. In: RECOMB 2002, pp. 100–108. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lancia, G., Istrail, S.: Protein structure comparison: Algorithms and applications. In: Guerra, C., Istrail, S. (eds.) Mathematical Methods for Protein Structure Analysis and Design. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 2666, pp. 1–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lemmen, C., Lengauer, T.: Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 14, 215–232 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolodny, R., Linial, N.: Approximate protein structural alignment in polynomial time. PNAS 101(33), 12201–12206 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldman, D., Papadimitriou, C.H., Istrail, S.: Algorithmic aspects of protein structure similarity. In: FOCS 1999: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 512–522. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shindyalov, I.N., Bourne, P.E.: Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. Protein Engineering 11(9), 739–747 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verbitsky, O.: On the largest common subgraph problem (1994) (unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jokisch, S., Müller, H.: Inter-point-distance-dependent approximate point set matching. Technical Report Research Report No. 653 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yuan, X., Bystroff, C.: Non-sequential structure-based alignments reveal topology-independent core packing arrangements in proteins. Bioinformatics 27, 1010–1019 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dror, O., Benyamini, H., Nussinov, R., Wolfson, H.: MASS: Multiple structural alignment by secondary structures. Bioinformatics 19(Suppl. 1), 95–104 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhu, J., Weng, Z.: FAST: A novel protein structure alignment algorithm. Proteins: Structure Function, and Bioinformatics (in Press, 2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berman, H.M., Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., Gilliland, G., Bhat, T.N., Weissig, H., Shindyalov, I.N., Bourne, P.E.: The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Research 28, 235–242 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arun, K.S., Huang, T.S., Blostein, S.D.: Least-square fitting of two 3-d point sets. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 9(5), 698–700 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robertson, N., Seymour, P.D.: Graph minors. II. algorithmic aspects of tree-width. Journal of Algorithms 7, 309–322 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu, J.: Rapid side-chain packing via tree decomposition. In: Miyano, S., Mesirov, J., Kasif, S., Istrail, S., Pevzner, P.A., Waterman, M. (eds.) RECOMB 2005. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3500, pp. 423–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hao, M.H., Rackovsky, S., Liwo, A., Pincus, M.R., Scheraga, H.A.: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89, 6614–6618 (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Caprara, A., Carr, R., Istrail, S., Lancia, G., Walenz, B.: 101 optimal PDB structure alignments: a branch-and-cut algorithm for the maximum contact map overlap problem. Journal of Computational Biology 11(1), 27–52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jinbo Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Feng Jiao
    • 3
  • Bonnie Berger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer Science and AI LaboratoryMIT 
  2. 2.Toyota Technological Institute at ChicagoUSA
  3. 3.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations