Cargando…

Objective identification of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures

BACKGROUND: The automation of objectively selecting amino acid residue ranges for structure superpositions is important for meaningful and consistent protein structure analyses. So far there is no widely-used standard for choosing these residue ranges for experimentally determined protein structures...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kirchner, Donata K, Güntert, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120703/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21592348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-170
_version_ 1782206738186895360
author Kirchner, Donata K
Güntert, Peter
author_facet Kirchner, Donata K
Güntert, Peter
author_sort Kirchner, Donata K
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The automation of objectively selecting amino acid residue ranges for structure superpositions is important for meaningful and consistent protein structure analyses. So far there is no widely-used standard for choosing these residue ranges for experimentally determined protein structures, where the manual selection of residue ranges or the use of suboptimal criteria remain commonplace. RESULTS: We present an automated and objective method for finding amino acid residue ranges for the superposition and analysis of protein structures, in particular for structure bundles resulting from NMR structure calculations. The method is implemented in an algorithm, CYRANGE, that yields, without protein-specific parameter adjustment, appropriate residue ranges in most commonly occurring situations, including low-precision structure bundles, multi-domain proteins, symmetric multimers, and protein complexes. Residue ranges are chosen to comprise as many residues of a protein domain that increasing their number would lead to a steep rise in the RMSD value. Residue ranges are determined by first clustering residues into domains based on the distance variance matrix, and then refining for each domain the initial choice of residues by excluding residues one by one until the relative decrease of the RMSD value becomes insignificant. A penalty for the opening of gaps favours contiguous residue ranges in order to obtain a result that is as simple as possible, but not simpler. Results are given for a set of 37 proteins and compared with those of commonly used protein structure validation packages. We also provide residue ranges for 6351 NMR structures in the Protein Data Bank. CONCLUSIONS: The CYRANGE method is capable of automatically determining residue ranges for the superposition of protein structure bundles for a large variety of protein structures. The method correctly identifies ordered regions. Global structure superpositions based on the CYRANGE residue ranges allow a clear presentation of the structure, and unnecessary small gaps within the selected ranges are absent. In the majority of cases, the residue ranges from CYRANGE contain fewer gaps and cover considerably larger parts of the sequence than those from other methods without significantly increasing the RMSD values. CYRANGE thus provides an objective and automatic method for standardizing the choice of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3120703
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31207032011-06-23 Objective identification of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures Kirchner, Donata K Güntert, Peter BMC Bioinformatics Methodology Article BACKGROUND: The automation of objectively selecting amino acid residue ranges for structure superpositions is important for meaningful and consistent protein structure analyses. So far there is no widely-used standard for choosing these residue ranges for experimentally determined protein structures, where the manual selection of residue ranges or the use of suboptimal criteria remain commonplace. RESULTS: We present an automated and objective method for finding amino acid residue ranges for the superposition and analysis of protein structures, in particular for structure bundles resulting from NMR structure calculations. The method is implemented in an algorithm, CYRANGE, that yields, without protein-specific parameter adjustment, appropriate residue ranges in most commonly occurring situations, including low-precision structure bundles, multi-domain proteins, symmetric multimers, and protein complexes. Residue ranges are chosen to comprise as many residues of a protein domain that increasing their number would lead to a steep rise in the RMSD value. Residue ranges are determined by first clustering residues into domains based on the distance variance matrix, and then refining for each domain the initial choice of residues by excluding residues one by one until the relative decrease of the RMSD value becomes insignificant. A penalty for the opening of gaps favours contiguous residue ranges in order to obtain a result that is as simple as possible, but not simpler. Results are given for a set of 37 proteins and compared with those of commonly used protein structure validation packages. We also provide residue ranges for 6351 NMR structures in the Protein Data Bank. CONCLUSIONS: The CYRANGE method is capable of automatically determining residue ranges for the superposition of protein structure bundles for a large variety of protein structures. The method correctly identifies ordered regions. Global structure superpositions based on the CYRANGE residue ranges allow a clear presentation of the structure, and unnecessary small gaps within the selected ranges are absent. In the majority of cases, the residue ranges from CYRANGE contain fewer gaps and cover considerably larger parts of the sequence than those from other methods without significantly increasing the RMSD values. CYRANGE thus provides an objective and automatic method for standardizing the choice of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures. BioMed Central 2011-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3120703/ /pubmed/21592348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-170 Text en Copyright ©2011 Kirchner and Güntert; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methodology Article
Kirchner, Donata K
Güntert, Peter
Objective identification of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures
title Objective identification of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures
title_full Objective identification of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures
title_fullStr Objective identification of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures
title_full_unstemmed Objective identification of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures
title_short Objective identification of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures
title_sort objective identification of residue ranges for the superposition of protein structures
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120703/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21592348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-170
work_keys_str_mv AT kirchnerdonatak objectiveidentificationofresiduerangesforthesuperpositionofproteinstructures
AT guntertpeter objectiveidentificationofresiduerangesforthesuperpositionofproteinstructures