Limits...
Sequence based residue depth prediction using evolutionary information and predicted secondary structure.

Zhang H, Zhang T, Chen K, Shen S, Ruan J, Kurgan L - BMC Bioinformatics (2008)

Bottom Line: When compared with the solvent accessibility, the depth allows studying deep-level structures and functional sites, and formation of the protein folding nucleus.We found that the distance based indices are harder to predict due to the more complex nature of the corresponding depth profiles.The predicted depth can be used to provide improved prediction of both buried and exposed residues.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: College of Mathematical Science and LPMC, Nankai University, Tianjin, PR China. zerohua@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Background: Residue depth allows determining how deeply a given residue is buried, in contrast to the solvent accessibility that differentiates between buried and solvent-exposed residues. When compared with the solvent accessibility, the depth allows studying deep-level structures and functional sites, and formation of the protein folding nucleus. Accurate prediction of residue depth would provide valuable information for fold recognition, prediction of functional sites, and protein design.

Results: A new method, RDPred, for the real-value depth prediction from protein sequence is proposed. RDPred combines information extracted from the sequence, PSI-BLAST scoring matrices, and secondary structure predicted with PSIPRED. Three-fold/ten-fold cross validation based tests performed on three independent, low-identity datasets show that the distance based depth (computed using MSMS) predicted by RDPred is characterized by 0.67/0.67, 0.66/0.67, and 0.64/0.65 correlation with the actual depth, by the mean absolute errors equal 0.56/0.56, 0.61/0.60, and 0.58/0.57, and by the mean relative errors equal 17.0%/16.9%, 18.2%/18.1%, and 17.7%/17.6%, respectively. The mean absolute and the mean relative errors are shown to be statistically significantly better when compared with a method recently proposed by Yuan and Wang [Proteins 2008; 70:509-516]. The results show that three-fold cross validation underestimates the variability of the prediction quality when compared with the results based on the ten-fold cross validation. We also show that the hydrophilic and flexible residues are predicted more accurately than hydrophobic and rigid residues. Similarly, the charged residues that include Lys, Glu, Asp, and Arg are the most accurately predicted. Our analysis reveals that evolutionary information encoded using PSSM is characterized by stronger correlation with the depth for hydrophilic amino acids (AAs) and aliphatic AAs when compared with hydrophobic AAs and aromatic AAs. Finally, we show that the secondary structure of coils and strands is useful in depth prediction, in contrast to helices that have relatively uniform distribution over the protein depth. Application of the predicted residue depth to prediction of buried/exposed residues shows consistent improvements in detection rates of both buried and exposed residues when compared with the competing method. Finally, we contrasted the prediction performance among distance based (MSMS and DPX) and volume based (SADIC) depth definitions. We found that the distance based indices are harder to predict due to the more complex nature of the corresponding depth profiles.

Conclusion: The proposed method, RDPred, provides statistically significantly better predictions of residue depth when compared with the competing method. The predicted depth can be used to provide improved prediction of both buried and exposed residues. The prediction of exposed residues has implications in characterization/prediction of interactions with ligands and other proteins, while the prediction of buried residues could be used in the context of folding predictions and simulations.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

The observed and predicted depths by RDPred for three protein chains: Panel (A) 1QFTA; Panel (B) 1ISPA; and Panel (C) 1H0LA.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2567998&req=5

Figure 6: The observed and predicted depths by RDPred for three protein chains: Panel (A) 1QFTA; Panel (B) 1ISPA; and Panel (C) 1H0LA.

Mentions: Figure 6 shows the observed depths and the depths predicted by RDPred for three representative protein chains, 1QFTA, 1ISPA and 1H0LA. The 1QFTA has MAE equal 0.555, which represents a prediction of average quality, see Figure 6A. The MAE of 1ISPA equals 0.637 (Figure 6B) and MAE of 1H0LA equals 0.317 (Figure 6C), which represents predictions with above average and below average quality, respectively. We observe that for all three cases, the depths of shallow (exposed) residues are predicted relatively well, i.e., their depths are neither under- or over-predicted. The main difference between the three typical prediction cases is the degree to which the deeply buried residues are predicted. In case of average or below average prediction, we observe that many of the buried residues are identified, but their depths are under-predicted. At the same time, Figure 6B that shows above average prediction indicates that depths of some of the buried residues are predicted accurately.


Sequence based residue depth prediction using evolutionary information and predicted secondary structure.

Zhang H, Zhang T, Chen K, Shen S, Ruan J, Kurgan L - BMC Bioinformatics (2008)

The observed and predicted depths by RDPred for three protein chains: Panel (A) 1QFTA; Panel (B) 1ISPA; and Panel (C) 1H0LA.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2567998&req=5

Figure 6: The observed and predicted depths by RDPred for three protein chains: Panel (A) 1QFTA; Panel (B) 1ISPA; and Panel (C) 1H0LA.
Mentions: Figure 6 shows the observed depths and the depths predicted by RDPred for three representative protein chains, 1QFTA, 1ISPA and 1H0LA. The 1QFTA has MAE equal 0.555, which represents a prediction of average quality, see Figure 6A. The MAE of 1ISPA equals 0.637 (Figure 6B) and MAE of 1H0LA equals 0.317 (Figure 6C), which represents predictions with above average and below average quality, respectively. We observe that for all three cases, the depths of shallow (exposed) residues are predicted relatively well, i.e., their depths are neither under- or over-predicted. The main difference between the three typical prediction cases is the degree to which the deeply buried residues are predicted. In case of average or below average prediction, we observe that many of the buried residues are identified, but their depths are under-predicted. At the same time, Figure 6B that shows above average prediction indicates that depths of some of the buried residues are predicted accurately.

Bottom Line: When compared with the solvent accessibility, the depth allows studying deep-level structures and functional sites, and formation of the protein folding nucleus.We found that the distance based indices are harder to predict due to the more complex nature of the corresponding depth profiles.The predicted depth can be used to provide improved prediction of both buried and exposed residues.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: College of Mathematical Science and LPMC, Nankai University, Tianjin, PR China. zerohua@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Background: Residue depth allows determining how deeply a given residue is buried, in contrast to the solvent accessibility that differentiates between buried and solvent-exposed residues. When compared with the solvent accessibility, the depth allows studying deep-level structures and functional sites, and formation of the protein folding nucleus. Accurate prediction of residue depth would provide valuable information for fold recognition, prediction of functional sites, and protein design.

Results: A new method, RDPred, for the real-value depth prediction from protein sequence is proposed. RDPred combines information extracted from the sequence, PSI-BLAST scoring matrices, and secondary structure predicted with PSIPRED. Three-fold/ten-fold cross validation based tests performed on three independent, low-identity datasets show that the distance based depth (computed using MSMS) predicted by RDPred is characterized by 0.67/0.67, 0.66/0.67, and 0.64/0.65 correlation with the actual depth, by the mean absolute errors equal 0.56/0.56, 0.61/0.60, and 0.58/0.57, and by the mean relative errors equal 17.0%/16.9%, 18.2%/18.1%, and 17.7%/17.6%, respectively. The mean absolute and the mean relative errors are shown to be statistically significantly better when compared with a method recently proposed by Yuan and Wang [Proteins 2008; 70:509-516]. The results show that three-fold cross validation underestimates the variability of the prediction quality when compared with the results based on the ten-fold cross validation. We also show that the hydrophilic and flexible residues are predicted more accurately than hydrophobic and rigid residues. Similarly, the charged residues that include Lys, Glu, Asp, and Arg are the most accurately predicted. Our analysis reveals that evolutionary information encoded using PSSM is characterized by stronger correlation with the depth for hydrophilic amino acids (AAs) and aliphatic AAs when compared with hydrophobic AAs and aromatic AAs. Finally, we show that the secondary structure of coils and strands is useful in depth prediction, in contrast to helices that have relatively uniform distribution over the protein depth. Application of the predicted residue depth to prediction of buried/exposed residues shows consistent improvements in detection rates of both buried and exposed residues when compared with the competing method. Finally, we contrasted the prediction performance among distance based (MSMS and DPX) and volume based (SADIC) depth definitions. We found that the distance based indices are harder to predict due to the more complex nature of the corresponding depth profiles.

Conclusion: The proposed method, RDPred, provides statistically significantly better predictions of residue depth when compared with the competing method. The predicted depth can be used to provide improved prediction of both buried and exposed residues. The prediction of exposed residues has implications in characterization/prediction of interactions with ligands and other proteins, while the prediction of buried residues could be used in the context of folding predictions and simulations.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus