Protein Contact Maps
Predicting the tertiary structure of a protein by looking at its amino acid (i.e., primary) sequence is usually called the protein folding problem. Contact map structures are bidimensional objects representing some of the structural information of a protein. In this contribution, we treat the use of contact map predictions to improve the quality of the predicted tertiary structure.
Proteins are macromolecules involved in many important biological mechanisms of the living organisms, such as providing structures (ligaments, fingernails, hair), helping in digestion (stomach enzymes), aiding in movement (muscles). They are composed of a long chain of amino acids. Protein structures represents the spatial conformation and properties useful to understand its behavior.
Protein Structure Prediction
Protein structure prediction is a key topic in computational structural proteomics. Structure prediction is a...
- Casp (2010) Casp 9 proceedings. http://predictioncenter.org/index.cgi?page=proceedings
- Hu J, Shen X, Shao Y, Bystroff C, Zaki MJ (2002) Mining protein contact maps. In: SIGKDD02 workshop on data mining in bioinformatics (BIOKDD02), Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Lund O, Frimand K, Gorodkin J, Bohr H, Bohr J, Hansen J, Brunak S (1997) Protein distance constraints predicted by neural networks and probability density functions. Protien Eng 10(11):1241–1248Google Scholar
- MacCallum RM (2004) Striped sheets and protein contact prediction. Bioinformatics 20:224–231Google Scholar
- Schölkopf B, Smola A (2002) Learning with Kernels: support vector machines, regularization, optimization, and beyond. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Tradigo G (2009) On the integration of protein contact map predictions. In: IEEE computer based medical systems, Albuquerque, NM, pp 1–5, Aug 2009. IEEE Computer Society. 10.1109/CBMS.2009.5255418.Google Scholar
- Vassura M, Margara L, Di Lena P, Medri F, Fariselli P, Casadio R (2008) Reconstruction of 3d structures from protein contact maps. Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 5(3):357–367Google Scholar