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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of molecular biology 2004-06, Vol.339 (3), p.647-678
Hauptverfasser: Veretnik, Stella, Bourne, Philip E, Alexandrov, Nickolai N, Shindyalov, Ilya N
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