SPINE: an integrated tracking database and data mining approach for identifying feasible targets in high-throughput structural proteomics

High-throughput structural proteomics is expected to generate considerable amounts of data on the progress of structure determination for many proteins. For each protein this includes information about cloning, expression, purification, biophysical characterization and structure determination via NMR spectroscopy or X-ray crystallography. It will be essential to develop specifications and ontologies for standardizing this information to make it amenable to retrospective analysis. To this end we created the SPINE database and analysis system for the Northeast Structural Genomics Consortium. SPINE, which is available at bioinfo.mbb.yale.edu/nesg or nesg.org, is specifically designed to enable distributed scientific collaboration via the Internet. It was designed not just as an information repository but as an active vehicle to standardize proteomics data in a form that would enable systematic data mining. The system features an intuitive user interface for interactive retrieval and modification of expression construct data, query forms designed to track global project progress and external links to many other resources. Currently the database contains experimental data on 985 constructs, of which 740 are drawn from Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum, 123 from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 93 from Caenorhabditis elegans and the remainder from other organisms. We developed a comprehensive set of data mining features for each protein, including several related to experimental progress (e.g. expression level, solubility and crystallization) and 42 based on the underlying protein sequence (e.g. amino acid composition, secondary structure and occurrence of low complexity regions). We demonstrate in detail the application of a particular machine learning approach, decision trees, to the tasks of predicting a protein's solubility and propensity to crystallize based on sequence features. We are able to extract a number of key rules from our trees, in particular that soluble proteins tend to have significantly more acidic residues and fewer hydrophobic stretches than insoluble ones. One of the characteristics of proteomics data sets, currently and in the foreseeable future, is their intermediate size ( approximately 500-5000 data points). This creates a number of issues in relation to error estimation. Initially we estimate the overall error in our trees based on standard cross-validation. However, this leaves out a significant fraction of the data in model construction and does not give error estimates on individual rules. Therefore, we present alternative methods to estimate the error in particular rules.

[1]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Bagging, Boosting, and C4.5 , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[2]  Rolf Apweiler,et al.  The SWISS-PROT protein sequence data bank and its supplement TrEMBL , 1997, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Whole-genome trees based on the occurrence of folds and orthologs: implications for comparing genomes on different levels. , 2000, Genome research.

[4]  G. Church,et al.  Systematic management and analysis of yeast gene expression data. , 2000, Genome research.

[5]  M Gerstein,et al.  A structural census of genomes: comparing bacterial, eukaryotic, and archaeal genomes in terms of protein structure. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  David R. Gilbert,et al.  FlyBase: a Drosophila database. The FlyBase consortium , 1997, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  D. Lipman,et al.  A genomic perspective on protein families. , 1997, Science.

[8]  T. Steitz,et al.  Identifying nonpolar transbilayer helices in amino acid sequences of membrane proteins. , 1986, Annual review of biophysics and biophysical chemistry.

[9]  Nathan Goodman,et al.  LabBase: A Database to Manage Laboratory Data in a Large-Scale Genome-Mapping Project , 1995 .

[10]  Gary D. Bader,et al.  BIND-a data specification for storing and describing biomolecular interactions, molecular complexes and pathways , 2000, Bioinform..

[11]  Perry L. Miller,et al.  Application of Information Technology: Organization of Heterogeneous Scientific Data Using the EAV/CR Representation , 1999, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[12]  J. Garnier,et al.  Analysis of the accuracy and implications of simple methods for predicting the secondary structure of globular proteins. , 1978, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  Huan Liu,et al.  Feature Selection for Classification , 1997, Intell. Data Anal..

[14]  Evelyn Camon,et al.  The EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

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

[16]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning , 1992 .

[17]  Alberto Maria Segre,et al.  Programs for Machine Learning , 1994 .

[18]  Biological Laboratories Divinity Avenue Cambridge Ma Usa. FlyBase.  FlyBase: a Drosophila database. , 1998, Nucleic acids research.

[19]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  Comprehensive, comprehensible, distributed and intelligent databases: current status , 1998, Bioinform..

[20]  Nathan Goodman,et al.  LabBase: managing lab data in a large-scale genome-mapping project , 1995 .

[21]  M Gerstein,et al.  Protein folds in the worm genome. , 1999, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[22]  W G Krebs,et al.  PartsList: a web-based system for dynamically ranking protein folds based on disparate attributes, including whole-genome expression and interaction information. , 2001, Nucleic acids research.

[23]  D. Lipman,et al.  National Center for Biotechnology Information , 2019, Springer Reference Medizin.

[24]  M. Gerstein.  How representative are the known structures of the proteins in a complete genome? A comprehensive structural census. , 1998, Folding & design.

[25]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[26]  김삼묘,et al.  “Bioinformatics” 특집을 내면서 , 2000 .

[27]  M. Gerstein.  Patterns of protein‐fold usage in eight microbial genomes: A comprehensive structural census , 1998, Proteins.

[28]  David C. Jones,et al.  CATH--a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. , 1997, Structure.

[29]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Simplifying decision trees , 1987, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[30]  M. Gerstein,et al.  A database of macromolecular motions. , 1998, Nucleic acids research.

[31]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[32]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Comparing genomes in terms of protein structure: surveys of a finite parts list. , 1998, FEMS microbiology reviews.

[33]  J. Wootton,et al.  Analysis of compositionally biased regions in sequence databases. , 1996, Methods in enzymology.

[34]  Hideaki Sugawara,et al.  DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ) in collaboration with mass sequencing teams , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[35]  Ioannis Xenarios,et al.  DIP: the Database of Interacting Proteins , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[36]  David Botstein,et al.  SGD: Saccharomyces Genome Database , 1998, Nucleic Acids Res..

[37]  Peter B. McGarvey,et al.  The Protein Information Resource (PIR) , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[39]  Rolf Apweiler,et al.  The SWISS-PROT protein sequence database and its supplement TrEMBL in 2000 , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[40]  Steven E. Brenner,et al.  The PRESAGE database for structural genomics , 1999, Nucleic Acids Res..

[41]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences , 1999, Nucleic Acids Res..