Toward Consistent Assignment of Structural Domains in Proteins
The assignment of protein domains from three-dimensional structure is critically important in understanding protein evolution and function, yet little quality assurance has been performed. Here, the differences in the assignment of structural domains are evaluated using six common assignment methods...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of molecular biology 2004-06, Vol.339 (3), p.647-678 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 678 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 647 |
container_title | Journal of molecular biology |
container_volume | 339 |
creator | Veretnik, Stella Bourne, Philip E Alexandrov, Nickolai N Shindyalov, Ilya N |
description | The assignment of protein domains from three-dimensional structure is critically important in understanding protein evolution and function, yet little quality assurance has been performed. Here, the differences in the assignment of structural domains are evaluated using six common assignment methods. Three human expert methods (AUTHORS (authors' annotation), CATH and SCOP) and three fully automated methods (DALI, DomainParser and PDP) are investigated by analysis of individual methods against the author's assignment as well as analysis based on the consensus among groups of methods (only expert, only automatic, combined). The results demonstrate that caution is recommended in using current domain assignments, and indicates where additional work is needed. Specifically, the major factors responsible for conflicting domain assignments between methods, both experts and automatic, are: (1) the definition of very small domains; (2) splitting secondary structures between domains; (3) the size and number of discontinuous domains; (4) closely packed or convoluted domain–domain interfaces; (5) structures with large and complex architectures; and (6) the level of significance placed upon structural, functional and evolutionary concepts in considering structural domain definitions. A web-based resource that focuses on the results of benchmarking and the analysis of domain assignments is available at
http://pdomains.sdsc.edu |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.03.053 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71931539</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022283604003559</els_id><sourcerecordid>71931539</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-b9b9268cdae185cb518a04d858def79f6050715cb67856cff5c2247a522e20673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMo7rr6A7xIT95aJ0nTpgiCrJ-woOB6DmmaSkrbrEmq-O_NsgvePM3APO8L8yB0jiHDgIurLuuGOiMAeQY0A0YP0BwDr1JeUH6I5gCEpITTYoZOvO8AIpLzYzTDDOclz8s5ulnbb-maZGlHb3zQY0huvTcf47BdbZu8BTepMDnZJ3d2kGb0iRmTV2eDjvspOmpl7_XZfi7Q-8P9evmUrl4en5e3q1TRvAppXdUVKbhqpMacqZphLiFvOOONbsuqLYBBieOhKDkrVNsyRUheSkaIJlCUdIEud70bZz8n7YMYjFe67-Wo7eRFiSuKGa0iiHegctZ7p1uxcWaQ7kdgEFtpohNRmthKE0BFNBIzF_vyqR5085fYW4rA9Q7Q8cUvo53wyuhR6cY4rYJorPmn_hdhq3w3</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71931539</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Toward Consistent Assignment of Structural Domains in Proteins</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Veretnik, Stella ; Bourne, Philip E ; Alexandrov, Nickolai N ; Shindyalov, Ilya N</creator><creatorcontrib>Veretnik, Stella ; Bourne, Philip E ; Alexandrov, Nickolai N ; Shindyalov, Ilya N</creatorcontrib><description>The assignment of protein domains from three-dimensional structure is critically important in understanding protein evolution and function, yet little quality assurance has been performed. Here, the differences in the assignment of structural domains are evaluated using six common assignment methods. Three human expert methods (AUTHORS (authors' annotation), CATH and SCOP) and three fully automated methods (DALI, DomainParser and PDP) are investigated by analysis of individual methods against the author's assignment as well as analysis based on the consensus among groups of methods (only expert, only automatic, combined). The results demonstrate that caution is recommended in using current domain assignments, and indicates where additional work is needed. Specifically, the major factors responsible for conflicting domain assignments between methods, both experts and automatic, are: (1) the definition of very small domains; (2) splitting secondary structures between domains; (3) the size and number of discontinuous domains; (4) closely packed or convoluted domain–domain interfaces; (5) structures with large and complex architectures; and (6) the level of significance placed upon structural, functional and evolutionary concepts in considering structural domain definitions. A web-based resource that focuses on the results of benchmarking and the analysis of domain assignments is available at
http://pdomains.sdsc.edu</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-2836</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1089-8638</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.03.053</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15147847</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; assignment of structural domains ; benchmarking ; consensus approach ; discontinuous domains ; domain boundaries ; Models, Molecular ; Protein Conformation ; Proteins - chemistry</subject><ispartof>Journal of molecular biology, 2004-06, Vol.339 (3), p.647-678</ispartof><rights>2004 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-b9b9268cdae185cb518a04d858def79f6050715cb67856cff5c2247a522e20673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-b9b9268cdae185cb518a04d858def79f6050715cb67856cff5c2247a522e20673</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2004.03.053$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15147847$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Veretnik, Stella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bourne, Philip E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexandrov, Nickolai N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shindyalov, Ilya N</creatorcontrib><title>Toward Consistent Assignment of Structural Domains in Proteins</title><title>Journal of molecular biology</title><addtitle>J Mol Biol</addtitle><description>The assignment of protein domains from three-dimensional structure is critically important in understanding protein evolution and function, yet little quality assurance has been performed. Here, the differences in the assignment of structural domains are evaluated using six common assignment methods. Three human expert methods (AUTHORS (authors' annotation), CATH and SCOP) and three fully automated methods (DALI, DomainParser and PDP) are investigated by analysis of individual methods against the author's assignment as well as analysis based on the consensus among groups of methods (only expert, only automatic, combined). The results demonstrate that caution is recommended in using current domain assignments, and indicates where additional work is needed. Specifically, the major factors responsible for conflicting domain assignments between methods, both experts and automatic, are: (1) the definition of very small domains; (2) splitting secondary structures between domains; (3) the size and number of discontinuous domains; (4) closely packed or convoluted domain–domain interfaces; (5) structures with large and complex architectures; and (6) the level of significance placed upon structural, functional and evolutionary concepts in considering structural domain definitions. A web-based resource that focuses on the results of benchmarking and the analysis of domain assignments is available at
http://pdomains.sdsc.edu</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>assignment of structural domains</subject><subject>benchmarking</subject><subject>consensus approach</subject><subject>discontinuous domains</subject><subject>domain boundaries</subject><subject>Models, Molecular</subject><subject>Protein Conformation</subject><subject>Proteins - chemistry</subject><issn>0022-2836</issn><issn>1089-8638</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMo7rr6A7xIT95aJ0nTpgiCrJ-woOB6DmmaSkrbrEmq-O_NsgvePM3APO8L8yB0jiHDgIurLuuGOiMAeQY0A0YP0BwDr1JeUH6I5gCEpITTYoZOvO8AIpLzYzTDDOclz8s5ulnbb-maZGlHb3zQY0huvTcf47BdbZu8BTepMDnZJ3d2kGb0iRmTV2eDjvspOmpl7_XZfi7Q-8P9evmUrl4en5e3q1TRvAppXdUVKbhqpMacqZphLiFvOOONbsuqLYBBieOhKDkrVNsyRUheSkaIJlCUdIEud70bZz8n7YMYjFe67-Wo7eRFiSuKGa0iiHegctZ7p1uxcWaQ7kdgEFtpohNRmthKE0BFNBIzF_vyqR5085fYW4rA9Q7Q8cUvo53wyuhR6cY4rYJorPmn_hdhq3w3</recordid><startdate>20040604</startdate><enddate>20040604</enddate><creator>Veretnik, Stella</creator><creator>Bourne, Philip E</creator><creator>Alexandrov, Nickolai N</creator><creator>Shindyalov, Ilya N</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040604</creationdate><title>Toward Consistent Assignment of Structural Domains in Proteins</title><author>Veretnik, Stella ; Bourne, Philip E ; Alexandrov, Nickolai N ; Shindyalov, Ilya N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-b9b9268cdae185cb518a04d858def79f6050715cb67856cff5c2247a522e20673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>assignment of structural domains</topic><topic>benchmarking</topic><topic>consensus approach</topic><topic>discontinuous domains</topic><topic>domain boundaries</topic><topic>Models, Molecular</topic><topic>Protein Conformation</topic><topic>Proteins - chemistry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Veretnik, Stella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bourne, Philip E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexandrov, Nickolai N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shindyalov, Ilya N</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of molecular biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Veretnik, Stella</au><au>Bourne, Philip E</au><au>Alexandrov, Nickolai N</au><au>Shindyalov, Ilya N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Toward Consistent Assignment of Structural Domains in Proteins</atitle><jtitle>Journal of molecular biology</jtitle><addtitle>J Mol Biol</addtitle><date>2004-06-04</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>339</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>647</spage><epage>678</epage><pages>647-678</pages><issn>0022-2836</issn><eissn>1089-8638</eissn><abstract>The assignment of protein domains from three-dimensional structure is critically important in understanding protein evolution and function, yet little quality assurance has been performed. Here, the differences in the assignment of structural domains are evaluated using six common assignment methods. Three human expert methods (AUTHORS (authors' annotation), CATH and SCOP) and three fully automated methods (DALI, DomainParser and PDP) are investigated by analysis of individual methods against the author's assignment as well as analysis based on the consensus among groups of methods (only expert, only automatic, combined). The results demonstrate that caution is recommended in using current domain assignments, and indicates where additional work is needed. Specifically, the major factors responsible for conflicting domain assignments between methods, both experts and automatic, are: (1) the definition of very small domains; (2) splitting secondary structures between domains; (3) the size and number of discontinuous domains; (4) closely packed or convoluted domain–domain interfaces; (5) structures with large and complex architectures; and (6) the level of significance placed upon structural, functional and evolutionary concepts in considering structural domain definitions. A web-based resource that focuses on the results of benchmarking and the analysis of domain assignments is available at
http://pdomains.sdsc.edu</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>15147847</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jmb.2004.03.053</doi><tpages>32</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-2836 |
ispartof | Journal of molecular biology, 2004-06, Vol.339 (3), p.647-678 |
issn | 0022-2836 1089-8638 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71931539 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Algorithms assignment of structural domains benchmarking consensus approach discontinuous domains domain boundaries Models, Molecular Protein Conformation Proteins - chemistry |
title | Toward Consistent Assignment of Structural Domains in Proteins |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T12%3A46%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Toward%20Consistent%20Assignment%20of%20Structural%20Domains%20in%20Proteins&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20molecular%20biology&rft.au=Veretnik,%20Stella&rft.date=2004-06-04&rft.volume=339&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=647&rft.epage=678&rft.pages=647-678&rft.issn=0022-2836&rft.eissn=1089-8638&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jmb.2004.03.053&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71931539%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71931539&rft_id=info:pmid/15147847&rft_els_id=S0022283604003559&rfr_iscdi=true |