首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Comprehensive Evaluation of Protein Structure Alignment Methods: Scoring by Geometric Measures
【2h】

Comprehensive Evaluation of Protein Structure Alignment Methods: Scoring by Geometric Measures

机译:蛋白质结构比对方法的综合评估:几何评分

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

We report the largest and most comprehensive comparison of protein structural alignment methods. Specifically, we evaluate six publicly available structure alignment programs: SSAP, STRUCTAL, DALI, LSQMAN, CE and SSM by aligning all 8,581,970 protein structure pairs in a test set of 2930 protein domains specially selected from CATH v.2.4 to ensure sequence diversity.We consider an alignment good if it matches many residues, and the two substructures are geometrically similar. Even with this definition, evaluating structural alignment methods is not straightforward. At first, we compared the rates of true and false positives using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with the CATH classification taken as a gold standard. This proved unsatisfactory in that the quality of the alignments is not taken into account: sometimes a method that finds less good alignments scores better than a method that finds better alignments. We correct this intrinsic limitation by using four different geometric match measures (SI, MI, SAS, and GSAS) to evaluate the quality of each structural alignment. With this improved analysis we show that there is a wide variation in the performance of different methods; the main reason for this is that it can be difficult to find a good structural alignment between two proteins even when such an alignment exists.We find that STRUCTAL and SSM perform best, followed by LSQMAN and CE. Our focus on the intrinsic quality of each alignment allows us to propose a new method, called “Best-of-All” that combines the best results of all methods. Many commonly used methods miss 10–50% of the good Best-of-All alignments.By putting existing structural alignments into proper perspective, our study allows better comparison of protein structures. By highlighting limitations of existing methods, it will spur the further development of better structural alignment methods. This will have significant biological implications now that structural comparison has come to play a central role in the analysis of experimental work on protein structure, protein function and protein evolution.
机译:我们报告最大和最全面的蛋白质结构比对方法的比较。具体来说,我们通过在从CATH v.2.4中特别选择的2930个蛋白质域的测试集中对所有8,581,970个蛋白质结构对进行比对,来评估六个公开可用的结构比对程序:SSAP,STRUCTAL,DALI,LSQMAN,CE和SSM,以确保序列多样性。如果它与许多残基匹配,并且两个子结构在几何上相似,则认为对齐方式很好。即使有了这个定义,评估结构对齐方法也不是一件容易的事。首先,我们使用接收器工作特性(ROC)曲线与CATH分类作为黄金标准比较了真假阳性率。这被证明是不令人满意的,因为没有考虑到比对的质量:有时候,找到不太好的比对的方法比找到更好的比对的方法得分更高。我们通过使用四个不同的几何匹配度量(SI,MI,SAS和GSAS)来评估每个结构对齐的质量,从而纠正了这种固有限制。通过这种改进的分析,我们表明不同方法的性能存在很大差异;主要原因是即使存在这样的比对,也可能很难在两个蛋白质之间找到良好的结构比对。我们发现STRUCTAL和SSM表现最佳,其次是LSQMAN和CE。我们对每个比对的内在质量的关注使我们能够提出一种新方法,称为“全部最佳”,它结合了所有方法的最佳结果。许多常用的方法错过了全部最佳比对的10%至5​​0%。通过将现有的结构比对放到正确的角度,我们的研究可以更好地比较蛋白质结构。通过强调现有方法的局限性,它将促进更好的结构比对方法的进一步发展。由于结构比较在分析蛋白质结构,蛋白质功能和蛋白质进化的实验工作中起着核心作用,因此这将具有重大的生物学意义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号