Prediction of protein function from protein sequence and structure

1. Introduction 308 2. Plan of this article 312 3. Natural mechanisms of development of novel protein functions 313 3.1 Divergence 313 3.2 Recruitment 316 3.3 ‘Mixing and matching’ of domains, including duplication/oligomerization, and domain swapping or fusion 316 4. Classification schemes for protein functions 317 4.1 General schemes 317 4.2 The EC classification 318 4.3 Combined classification schemes 319 4.4 The Gene Ontology Consortium 321 5. Methods for assigning protein function 321 5.1 Detection of protein homology from sequence, and its application to function assignment 321 5.2 Detection of structural similarity, protein structure classifications, and structure/function correlations 326 5.3 Function prediction from amino-acid sequence 327 5.3.1 Databases of single motifs 328 5.3.2 Databases of profiles 329 5.3.3 Databases of multiple motifs 330 5.3.4 Precompiled families 331 5.3.5 Function identification from sequence by feature extraction 331 5.4 Methods making use of structural data 332 6. Applications of full-organism information: inferences from genomic context and protein interaction patterns 334 7. Conclusions 335 8. Acknowledgements 335 9. References 335 The sequence of a genome contains the plans of the possible life of an organism, but implementation of genetic information depends on the functions of the proteins and nucleic acids that it encodes. Many individual proteins of known sequence and structure present challenges to the understanding of their function. In particular, a number of genes responsible for diseases have been identified but their specific functions are unknown. Whole-genome sequencing projects are a major source of proteins of unknown function. Annotation of a genome involves assignment of functions to gene products, in most cases on the basis of amino-acid sequence alone. 3D structure can aid the assignment of function, motivating the challenge of structural genomics projects to make structural information available for novel uncharacterized proteins. Structure-based identification of homologues often succeeds where sequence-alone-based methods fail, because in many cases evolution retains the folding pattern long after sequence similarity becomes undetectable. Nevertheless, prediction of protein function from sequence and structure is a difficult problem, because homologous proteins often have different functions. Many methods of function prediction rely on identifying similarity in sequence and/or structure between a protein of unknown function and one or more well-understood proteins. Alternative methods include inferring conservation patterns in members of a functionally uncharacterized family for which many sequences and structures are known. However, these inferences are tenuous. Such methods provide reasonable guesses at function, but are far from foolproof. It is therefore fortunate that the development of whole-organism approaches and comparative genomics permits other approaches to function prediction when the data are available. These include the use of protein–protein interaction patterns, and correlations between occurrences of related proteins in different organisms, as indicators of functional properties. Even if it is possible to ascribe a particular function to a gene product, the protein may have multiple functions. A fundamental problem is that function is in many cases an ill-defined concept. In this article we review the state of the art in function prediction and describe some of the underlying difficulties and successes.

[1]  N H Martin,et al.  Men and machines. , 1973, Journal of clinical pathology.

[2]  A. Lesk,et al.  How different amino acid sequences determine similar protein structures: the structure and evolutionary dynamics of the globins. , 1980, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  M. Perutz Species adaptation in a protein molecule. , 1983, Molecular biology and evolution.

[4]  A. Lesk,et al.  The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. , 1986, The EMBO journal.

[5]  J. Piatigorsky,et al.  Recruitment of enzymes as lens structural proteins. , 1987, Science.

[6]  H. Muirhead,et al.  A specific, highly active malate dehydrogenase by redesign of a lactate dehydrogenase framework. , 1988, Science.

[7]  T. Hunter,et al.  The protein kinase family: conserved features and deduced phylogeny of the catalytic domains. , 1988, Science.

[8]  W R Taylor,et al.  Protein structure alignment. , 1989, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  M. Riley,et al.  Functions of the gene products of Escherichia coli , 1993, Microbiological reviews.

[10]  C. Sander,et al.  Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  R F Doolittle,et al.  Convergent evolution: the need to be explicit. , 1994, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[12]  M. Ashburner,et al.  FlyBase--the Drosophila genetic database. , 1994, Development.

[13]  G. Barton Scop: structural classification of proteins. , 1994, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[14]  A G Murzin,et al.  SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  O. Lichtarge Evolutionarily conserved Gaypy binding surfaces support amodel oftheG protein-receptor complex , 1996 .

[16]  P. Bork,et al.  Protein sequence motifs. , 1996, Current opinion in structural biology.

[17]  S. Eddy Hidden Markov models. , 1996, Current opinion in structural biology.

[18]  F. Cohen,et al.  An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  J M Thornton,et al.  Derivation of 3D coordinate templates for searching structural databases: Application to ser‐His‐Asp catalytic triads in the serine proteinases and lipases , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[20]  N. W. Davis,et al.  The complete genome sequence of Escherichia coli K-12. , 1997, Science.

[21]  Hans-Werner Mewes,et al.  MIPS: a database for protein sequences, homology data and yeast genome information , 1997, Nucleic Acids Res..

[22]  Dan Gusfield,et al.  Algorithms on Strings, Trees, and Sequences - Computer Science and Computational Biology , 1997 .

[23]  Temple F. Smith,et al.  The challenges of genome sequence annotation or “The devil is in the details” , 1997, Nature Biotechnology.

[24]  Lawrence Hunter,et al.  Predicting Enzyme Function from Sequence: A Systematic Appraisal , 1997, ISMB.

[25]  Monica Riley,et al.  Genes and proteins of Escherichia coli K-12 (GenProtEC) , 1997, Nucleic Acids Res..

[26]  F E Cohen,et al.  Pathologic conformations of prion proteins. , 1998, Annual review of biochemistry.

[27]  A Bairoch,et al.  Protein annotation: detective work for function prediction. , 1998, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[28]  P C Babbitt,et al.  Evolution of an enzyme active site: the structure of a new crystal form of muconate lactonizing enzyme compared with mandelate racemase and enolase. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  J. Whisstock,et al.  An atlas of serpin conformations. , 1998, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[30]  Michael Y. Galperin,et al.  Analogous enzymes: independent inventions in enzyme evolution. , 1998, Genome research.

[31]  T. Smith,et al.  Functional genomics--bioinformatics is ready for the challenge. , 1998, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[32]  A. Dean,et al.  The structural basis of molecular adaptation. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

[33]  Yan P. Yuan,et al.  Predicting function: from genes to genomes and back. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[34]  P D Karp,et al.  What we do not know about sequence analysis and sequence databases. , 1998, Bioinformatics.

[35]  P. Bork,et al.  Predicting functions from protein sequences—where are the bottlenecks? , 1998, Nature Genetics.

[36]  A. Murzin How far divergent evolution goes in proteins. , 1998, Current opinion in structural biology.

[37]  M. Riley Systems for categorizing functions of gene products. , 1998, Current Opinion in Structural Biology.

[38]  M. Helmer-Citterich,et al.  Three-dimensional profiles: a new tool to identify protein surface similarities. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[39]  A. Fiser,et al.  Convergent evolution of Trichomonas vaginalis lactate dehydrogenase from malate dehydrogenase. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  Frances M. G. Pearl,et al.  Protein folds, functions and evolution. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  Yunje Cho,et al.  Structure-based identification of a novel NTPase from Methanococcus jannaschii , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[42]  Winona C. Barker,et al.  PIR-ALN: a database of protein sequence alignments , 1999, Bioinform..

[43]  George D. Rose,et al.  A protein taxonomy based on secondary structure , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[44]  C. Orengo,et al.  Evolution of protein function, from a structural perspective. , 1999, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[45]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  A combined algorithm for genome-wide prediction of protein function , 1999, Nature.

[46]  C. Sander,et al.  Functional Classes in the Three Domains of Life , 1999, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[47]  A. Sali,et al.  Structural genomics: beyond the Human Genome Project , 1999, Nature Genetics.

[48]  J M Thornton,et al.  Three-dimensional structure analysis of PROSITE patterns. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[49]  S. Brenner Errors in genome annotation. , 1999, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[50]  Chris Sander,et al.  Protein folds and families: sequence and structure alignments , 1999, Nucleic Acids Res..

[51]  M. Ehrmann,et al.  A Temperature-Dependent Switch from Chaperone to Protease in a Widely Conserved Heat Shock Protein , 1999, Cell.

[52]  D. Higgins,et al.  Molecular evolution of immunoglobulin and fibronectin domains in titin and related muscle proteins. , 1999, Gene.

[53]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[54]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  Computational Approaches to Drug Design , 1999, Algorithmica.

[55]  M. Gerstein,et al.  The relationship between protein structure and function: a comprehensive survey with application to the yeast genome. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[56]  X. Gu,et al.  Statistical methods for testing functional divergence after gene duplication. , 1999, Molecular biology and evolution.

[57]  E. Koonin,et al.  Gleaning non-trivial structural, functional and evolutionary information about proteins by iterative database searches. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[58]  D. Sanchez,et al.  Generation of evolutionary novelty by functional shift. , 1999, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[59]  P. Bork,et al.  Homology among (betaalpha)(8) barrels: implications for the evolution of metabolic pathways. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[60]  A. Valencia,et al.  Practical limits of function prediction , 2000, Proteins.

[61]  R M Jackson,et al.  The serine protease inhibitor canonical loop conformation: examples found in extracellular hydrolases, toxins, cytokines and viral proteins. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[62]  Jacquelyn S. Fetrow,et al.  Structural genomics and its importance for gene function analysis , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[63]  L. Shapiro,et al.  Finding function through structural genomics. , 2000, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[64]  G. Petsko,et al.  Crystal structure of rabbit phosphoglucose isomerase, a glycolytic enzyme that moonlights as neuroleukin, autocrine motility factor, and differentiation mediator. , 2000, Biochemistry.

[65]  Nathan Linial,et al.  ProtoMap: automatic classification of protein sequences and hierarchy of protein families , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[66]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  Comparison of functional annotation schemes for genomes , 2000, Functional & Integrative Genomics.

[67]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Assessing annotation transfer for genomics: quantifying the relations between protein sequence, structure and function through traditional and probabilistic scores. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[68]  J. Moult,et al.  Biological function made crystal clear - annotation of hypothetical proteins via structural genomics. , 2000, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[69]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  A regulator of G protein signaling interaction surface linked to effector specificity. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[70]  Patricia C Babbitt,et al.  Can sequence determine function? , 2000, Genome Biology.

[71]  Michael Y. Galperin,et al.  Towards understanding the first genome sequence of a crenarchaeon by genome annotation using clusters of orthologous groups of proteins (COGs) , 2000, Genome Biology.

[72]  Warren C. Lathe,et al.  Predicting protein function by genomic context: quantitative evaluation and qualitative inferences. , 2000, Genome research.

[73]  Helen M. Berman,et al.  Quality control in databanks for molecular biology. , 2000, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[74]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Protein function in the post-genomic era , 2000, Nature.

[75]  N. Grishin,et al.  Crystal structure of YbaK protein from Haemophilus influenzae (HI1434) at 1.8 Å resolution: Functional implications , 2000, Proteins.

[76]  T K Attwood,et al.  The quest to deduce protein function from sequence: the role of pattern databases. , 2000, The international journal of biochemistry & cell biology.

[77]  R. Russell,et al.  Analysis and prediction of functional sub-types from protein sequence alignments. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[78]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[79]  B. Snel,et al.  Gene and context: integrative approaches to genome analysis. , 2000, Advances in protein chemistry.

[80]  Ridong Chen,et al.  Functional prediction: Identification of protein orthologs and paralogs , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[81]  Shmuel Pietrokovski,et al.  Increased coverage of protein families with the Blocks Database servers , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[82]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Automated structure-based prediction of functional sites in proteins: applications to assessing the validity of inheriting protein function from homology in genome annotation and to protein docking. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[83]  C. Chothia,et al.  Assignment of homology to genome sequences using a library of hidden Markov models that represent all proteins of known structure. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[84]  A. Valencia,et al.  Intrinsic errors in genome annotation. , 2001, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[85]  Chris P. Ponting,et al.  Issues in Predicting Protein Function From Sequence , 2001, Briefings Bioinform..

[86]  C. Chothia,et al.  Determination of protein function, evolution and interactions by structural genomics. , 2001, Current opinion in structural biology.

[87]  J. Whisstock,et al.  Protein structural alignments and functional genomics , 2001, Proteins.

[88]  S. Brenner A tour of structural genomics , 2001, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[89]  Mikhail S. Gelfand,et al.  Gene recognition in eukaryotic DNA by comparison of genomic sequences , 2001, Bioinform..

[90]  N. Grishin Fold change in evolution of protein structures. , 2001, Journal of structural biology.

[91]  J. Whisstock,et al.  Characterization of an adapter subunit to a phosphatidylinositol (3)P 3-phosphatase: Identification of a myotubularin-related protein lacking catalytic activity , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[92]  J. Jung,et al.  Protein structure prediction. , 2001, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[93]  Arthur M. Lesk,et al.  Introduction to protein architecture : the structural biologyof proteins , 2001 .

[94]  Olivier Lichtarge,et al.  Prediction and confirmation of a site critical for effector regulation of RGS domain activity , 2001, Nature Structural Biology.

[95]  J M Thornton,et al.  Small-molecule metabolism: an enzyme mosaic. , 2001, Trends in biotechnology.

[96]  J M Thornton,et al.  From Genome to Function , 2001, Science.

[97]  Monica Riley,et al.  A functional update of the Escherichia coli K-12 genome , 2001, Genome Biology.

[98]  P. Koehl,et al.  Protein structure similarities. , 2001, Current opinion in structural biology.

[99]  Ridong Chen,et al.  Functional misassignment of genes , 2001, Nature Biotechnology.

[100]  Liisa Holm,et al.  Identification of homology in protein structure classification , 2001, Nature Structural Biology.

[101]  P. Bork,et al.  Quod erat demonstrandum? The mystery of experimental validation of apparently erroneous computational analyses of protein sequences , 2001, Genome Biology.

[102]  H. Mewes,et al.  SNAPping up functionally related genes based on context information: a colinearity-free approach. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[103]  Yuan Gao,et al.  DELPHI: A pattern-based method for detecting sequence similarity , 2001, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[104]  C. Chothia,et al.  The evolution and structural anatomy of the small molecule metabolic pathways in Escherichia coli. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[105]  T K Attwood,et al.  A compendium of specific motifs for diagnosing GPCR subtypes. , 2001, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[106]  Michael Y. Galperin,et al.  The COG database: new developments in phylogenetic classification of proteins from complete genomes , 2001, Nucleic Acids Res..

[107]  Lincoln Stein,et al.  Genome annotation: from sequence to biology , 2001, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[108]  P. Babbitt,et al.  Divergent evolution of enzymatic function: mechanistically diverse superfamilies and functionally distinct suprafamilies. , 2001, Annual review of biochemistry.

[109]  Terri K. Attwood,et al.  The PRINTS Database: A Resource for Identification of Protein Families , 2002, Briefings Bioinform..

[110]  C. Orengo,et al.  Plasticity of enzyme active sites. , 2002, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[111]  J K Field,et al.  A comparative guide to gene prediction tools for the bioinformatics amateur. , 2002, International journal of oncology.

[112]  M. Vidal,et al.  Structural genomics: A pipeline for providing structures for the biologist , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[113]  C. A. Andersen,et al.  Prediction of human protein function from post-translational modifications and localization features. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[114]  Amos Bairoch,et al.  PROSITE: A Documented Database Using Patterns and Profiles as Motif Descriptors , 2002, Briefings Bioinform..

[115]  J. Whisstock,et al.  Serpins: Finely Balanced Conformational Traps , 2002, IUBMB life.

[116]  E. Eisenstein,et al.  From structure to function: YrbI from Haemophilus influenzae (HI1679) is a phosphatase , 2002, Proteins.

[117]  C. Orengo,et al.  One fold with many functions: the evolutionary relationships between TIM barrel families based on their sequences, structures and functions. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[118]  Xun Gu,et al.  DIVERGE: phylogeny-based analysis for functional-structural divergence of a protein family , 2002, Bioinform..

[119]  D. Baker,et al.  Protein structure prediction in 2002. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[120]  T K Attwood,et al.  Deriving structural and functional insights from a ligand-based hierarchical classification of G protein-coupled receptors. , 2002, Protein engineering.

[121]  S. Prusiner,et al.  A Change in the Conformation of Prions Accompanies the Emergence of a New Prion Strain , 2002, Neuron.

[122]  Assisting functional assignment for hypothetical Heamophilus influenzae gene products through structural genomics. , 2002, Current drug targets. Infectious disorders.

[123]  Terri K. Attwood,et al.  PRINTS and PRINTS-S shed light on protein ancestry , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[124]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  Structural clusters of evolutionary trace residues are statistically significant and common in proteins. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[125]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  Evolutionary predictions of binding surfaces and interactions. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[126]  Ioannis Xenarios,et al.  DIP, the Database of Interacting Proteins: a research tool for studying cellular networks of protein interactions , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[127]  Baldomero Oliva,et al.  Structural similarity to link sequence space: New potential superfamilies and implications for structural genomics , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[128]  B. Rost Enzyme function less conserved than anticipated. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[129]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  SNAPper: gene order predicts gene function , 2002, Bioinform..

[130]  A. Tramontano,et al.  Classification of proteins based on the properties of the ligand‐binding site: The case of adenine‐binding proteins , 2002, Proteins.

[131]  Sándor Pongor,et al.  The SBASE protein domain library, release 9.0: an online resource for protein domain identification , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[132]  Jérôme Gouzy,et al.  ProDom: Automated Clustering of Homologous Domains , 2002, Briefings Bioinform..

[133]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  Toward a systematic definition of protein function that scales to the genome level: defining function in terms of interactions , 2002, Proc. IEEE.

[134]  Susumu Goto,et al.  The KEGG databases at GenomeNet , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[135]  P. Gettins Serpin structure, mechanism, and function. , 2002, Chemical reviews.

[136]  Wojciech Rytter,et al.  Jewels of stringology , 2002 .

[137]  Robert B. Russell,et al.  Predicting Function From Structure: Examples of the Serine Protease Inhibitor Canonical Loop Conformation Found in Extracellular Proteins , 2001, Comput. Chem..

[138]  Frances M. G. Pearl,et al.  The CATH protein family database: A resource for structural and functional annotation of genomes , 2002, Proteomics.

[139]  Tim J. P. Hubbard,et al.  SCOP database in 2002: refinements accommodate structural genomics , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[140]  Lisa N Kinch,et al.  CASP5 assessment of fold recognition target predictions , 2003, Proteins.

[141]  E. Koonin,et al.  Emergence of diverse biochemical activities in evolutionarily conserved structural scaffolds of proteins. , 2003, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[142]  Anton J. Enright,et al.  Classification schemes for protein structure and function , 2003, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[143]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Ontologies for proteomics: towards a systematic definition of structure and function that scales to the genome level. , 2003, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[144]  Sung-Hou Kim,et al.  Overview of structural genomics: from structure to function. , 2003, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[145]  Cathy H. Wu,et al.  iProClass: an integrated database of protein family, function and structure information , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[146]  L. Kavraki,et al.  An accurate, sensitive, and scalable method to identify functional sites in protein structures. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[147]  Terri K. Attwood,et al.  PRINTS and its automatic supplement, prePRINTS , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[148]  James E. Bray,et al.  The CATH database: an extended protein family resource for structural and functional genomics , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[149]  Alex Bateman,et al.  The InterPro Database, 2003 brings increased coverage and new features , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[150]  Christian von Mering,et al.  STRING: a database of predicted functional associations between proteins , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[151]  David A. Fenstermacher,et al.  Introduction to bioinformatics , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..