Search

The Rossmann fold is one of the most commonly observed structural domains in proteins. The fold is composed of consecutive alternating β-strands and α-helices that form a layer of β-sheet with one (or two) layer(s) of α-helices. Here, we will discuss the Rossmann fold starting from its discovery 55 years ago, then overview entries of the fold in the major protein classification databases, SCOP and CATH, as well as the number of the occurrences of the fold in genomes. We also discuss the Rossmann fold as an interesting target of protein engineering as the site-directed mutagenesis of the fold can alter the ligand-binding specificity of the structure.

Web-based protein structure databases come in a wide variety of types and levels of information content. Those having the most general interest are the various atlases that describe each experimentally determined protein structure and provide useful links, analyses, and schematic diagrams relating to its 3D structure and biological function. Also of great interest are the databases that classify 3D structures by their folds as these can reveal evolutionary relationships which may be hard to detect from sequence comparison alone. Related to these are the numerous servers that compare folds-particularly useful for newly solved structures, and especially those of unknown function. Beyond these are a vast number of databases for the more specialized user, dealing with specific families, diseases, structural features, and so on.

The Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) and Class, Architecture, Topology, Homology (CATH) databases have been valuable resources for protein structure classification for over 20 years. Development of SCOP (version 1) concluded in June 2009 with SCOP 1.75. The SCOPe (SCOP-extended) database offers continued development of the classic SCOP hierarchy, adding over 33,000 structures. We have attempted to assess the impact of these two decade old resources and guide future development. To this end, we surveyed recent articles to learn how structure classification data are used. Of 571 articles published in 2012-2013 that cite SCOP, 439 actually use data from the resource. We found that the type of use was fairly evenly distributed among four top categories: A) study protein structure or evolution (27% of articles), B) train and/or benchmark algorithms (28% of articles), C) augment non-SCOP datasets with SCOP classification (21% of articles), and D) examine the classification of one protein/a small set of proteins (22% of articles). Most articles described computational research, although 11% described purely experimental research, and a further 9% included both. We examined how CATH and SCOP were used in 158 articles that cited both databases: while some studies used only one dataset, the majority used data from both resources. Protein structure classification remains highly relevant for a diverse range of problems and settings., (© 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The structures of the same protein, determined under different conditions, provide clues toward understanding the role of structural changes in the protein's function. Structural changes are usually identified as rigid-body motions, which are defined using a particular threshold of rigidity, such as domain motions. However, each protein actually undergoes motions with various size and magnitude ranges. In this study, to describe protein structural changes more comprehensively, we propose a method based on hierarchical clustering. This method enables the illustration of a wide range of protein motions in a single tree diagram, named the "Motion Tree". We applied the method to 432 proteins exhibiting large structural changes and classified their Motion Trees in terms of the characteristic indices of the trees. This classification of the Motion Trees revealed clear relationships to their protein functions. Especially, complex structural changes are significantly correlated with multi-step protein functions., (© 2013.)

The POLYFIT rigid-body algorithm for automated global pairwise and multiple protein structural alignment is presented. Smith-Waterman local alignment is used to establish a set of seed equivalences that are extended using Needleman-Wunsch dynamic programming techniques. Structural and functional interaction constraints provided by evolution are encoded as one-dimensional residue physical environment strings for alignment of highly structurally overlapped protein pairs. Local structure alignment of more distantly related pairs is carried out using rigid-body conformational matching of 15-residue fragments, with allowance made for less stringent conformational matching of metal-ion and small molecule ligand-contact, disulphide bridge, and cis-peptide correspondences. Protein structural plasticity is accommodated through the stepped adjustment of a single empirical distance parameter value in the calculation of the Smith-Waterman dynamic programming matrix. Structural overlap is used both as a measure of similarity and to assess alignment quality. Pairwise alignment accuracy has been benchmarked against that of 10 widely used aligners on the Sippl and Wiederstein set of difficult pairwise structure alignment problems, and more extensively against that of Matt, SALIGN, and MUSTANG in pairwise and multiple structural alignments of protein domains with low shared sequence identity in the SCOP-ASTRAL 40% compendium. The results demonstrate the advantages of POLYFIT over other aligners in the efficient and robust identification of matching seed residue positions in distantly related protein targets and in the generation of longer structurally overlapped alignment lengths. Superposition-based application areas include comparative modeling and protein and ligand design. POLYFIT is available on the Web server at http://polyfit.insa-toulouse.fr., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

We propose a novel technique for automatically generating the SCOP classification of a protein structure with high accuracy. We achieve accurate classification by combining the decisions of multiple methods using the consensus of a committee (or an ensemble) classifier. Our technique, based on decision trees, is rooted in machine learning which shows that by judicially employing component classifiers, an ensemble classifier can be constructed to outperform its components. We use two sequence- and three structure-comparison tools as component classifiers. Given a protein structure and using the joint hypothesis, we first determine if the protein belongs to an existing category (family, superfamily, fold) in the SCOP hierarchy. For the proteins that are predicted as members of the existing categories, we compute their family-, superfamily-, andfold-level classifications using the consensus classifier. We show that we can significantly improve the classification accuracy compared to the individual component classifiers. In particular, we achieve error rates that are 3–12 times less than the individual classifiers' error rates at the family level, 1.5–4.5 times less at the superfamily level, and 1.1–2.4 times less at the fold level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the major research directions in bioinformatics is that of assigning superfamily classification to a given set of proteins. The classification reflects the structural, evolutionary, and functional relatedness. These relationships are embodied in a hierarchical classification, such as the Structural Classification of Protein (SCOP), which is mostly manually curated. Such a classification is essential for the structural and functional analyses of proteins. Yet a large number of proteins remain unclassified. In this study, we have proposed an unsupervised machine learning approach to classify and assign a given set of proteins to SCOP superfamilies. In the method, we have constructed a database and similarity matrix using P-values obtained from an all-against-all BLAST run and trained the network with the ART2 unsupervised learning algorithm using the rows of the similarity matrix as input vectors, enabling the trained network to classify the proteins from 0.82 to 0.97 f-measure accuracy. The performance of ART2 has been compared with that of spectral clustering, Random forest, SVM, and HHpred. ART2 performs better than the others except HHpred. HHpred performs better than ART2 and the sum of errors is smaller than that of the other methods evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]