4.6 Review

Analysis of loop boundaries using different local structure assignment methods

期刊

PROTEIN SCIENCE
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 1869-1881

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pro.198

关键词

protein structures; biochemistry; amino acids; secondary structures; propensities

资金

  1. The Ministere de la Recherche, Universite Paris Diderot-Paris 7
  2. Universite de La Reunion
  3. The French Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM)
  4. The Conseil Regional de La Reunion
  5. European Union
  6. Ministere de la Recherche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Loops connect regular secondary structures. In many instances, they are known to play important biological roles. Analysis and prediction of loop conformations depend directly on the definition of repetitive structures. Nonetheless, the secondary structure assignment methods (SSAMs) often lead to divergent assignments. In this study, we analyzed, both structure and sequence point of views, how the divergence between different SSAMs affect boundary definitions of loops connecting regular secondary structures. The analysis of SSAMs underlines that no clear consensus between the different SSAMs can be easily found. Because these latter greatly influence the loop boundary definitions, important variations are indeed observed, that is, capping positions are shifted between different SSAMs. On the other hand, our results show that the sequence information in these capping regions are more stable than expected, and, classical and equivalent sequence patterns were found for most of the SSAMs. This is, to our knowledge, the most exhaustive survey in this field as (i) various databank have been used leading to similar results without implication of protein redundancy and (ii) the first time various SSAMs have been used. This work hence gives new insights into the difficult question of assignment of repetitive structures and addresses the issue of loop boundaries definition. Although SSAMs give very different local structure assignments capping sequence patterns remain efficiently stable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据