Improved alignment quality by combining evolutionary information, predicted secondary structure and self-organizing maps

BackgroundProtein sequence alignment is one of the basic tools in bioinformatics. Correct alignments are required for a range of tasks including the derivation of phylogenetic trees and protein structure prediction. Numerous studies have shown that the incorporation of predicted secondary structure information into alignment algorithms improves their performance. Secondary structure predictors have to be trained on a set of somewhat arbitrarily defined states (e.g. helix, strand, coil), and it has been shown that the choice of these states has some effect on alignment quality. However, it is not unlikely that prediction of other structural features also could provide an improvement. In this study we use an unsupervised clustering method, the self-organizing map, to assign sequence profile windows to "structural states" and assess their use in sequence alignment.ResultsThe addition of self-organizing map locations as inputs to a profile-profile scoring function improves the alignment quality of distantly related proteins slightly. The improvement is slightly smaller than that gained from the inclusion of predicted secondary structure. However, the information seems to be complementary as the two prediction schemes can be combined to improve the alignment quality by a further small but significant amount.ConclusionIt has been observed in many studies that predicted secondary structure significantly improves the alignments. Here we have shown that the addition of self-organizing map locations can further improve the alignments as the self-organizing map locations seem to contain some information that is not captured by the predicted secondary structure.

[1]  Roland L Dunbrack,et al.  Scoring profile‐to‐profile sequence alignments , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[2]  T L Blundell,et al.  FUGUE: sequence-structure homology recognition using environment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  B. Honig,et al.  On the role of structural information in remote homology detection and sequence alignment: new methods using hybrid sequence profiles. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  Christopher Bystroff,et al.  Improved pairwise alignment of proteins in the Twilight Zone using local structure predictions , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computational Systems Bioinformatics Conference - Workshops (CSBW'05).

[5]  Golan Yona,et al.  Within the twilight zone: a sensitive profile-profile comparison tool based on information theory. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  A. Sali,et al.  Alignment of protein sequences by their profiles , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[7]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  Using evolutionary information for the query and target improves fold recognition , 2004, Proteins.

[8]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Enhanced genome annotation using structural profiles in the program 3D-PSSM. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  Christopher M. Bishop,et al.  Neural networks for pattern recognition , 1995 .

[10]  Robert M. MacCallum,et al.  Striped sheets and protein contact prediction , 2004, ISMB/ECCB.

[11]  K. Karplus,et al.  Hidden Markov models that use predicted local structure for fold recognition: Alphabets of backbone geometry , 2003, Proteins.

[12]  E. Lindahl,et al.  Identification of related proteins on family, superfamily and fold level. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  MaxSub: an automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality , 2000, Bioinform..

[14]  Kimmen Sjölander,et al.  A comparison of scoring functions for protein sequence profile alignment , 2004, Bioinform..

[15]  Marcin von Grotthuss,et al.  ORFeus: detection of distant homology using sequence profiles and predicted secondary structure , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[16]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  A study of quality measures for protein threading models , 2001, BMC Bioinformatics.

[17]  A. Godzik,et al.  Comparison of sequence profiles. Strategies for structural predictions using sequence information , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[18]  Kevin Karplus,et al.  Evaluation of local structure alphabets based on residue burial , 2004, Proteins.

[19]  Richard Chung,et al.  Protein family comparison using statistical models and predicted structural information , 2004, BMC Bioinformatics.

[20]  David C. Jones,et al.  GenTHREADER: an efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  ProfNet, a method to derive profile-profile alignment scoring functions that improves the alignments of distantly related proteins , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[22]  Nick V. Grishin,et al.  Probabilistic scoring measures for profile-profile comparison yield more accurate short seed alignments , 2003, Bioinform..

[23]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  Profile–profile methods provide improved fold‐recognition: A study of different profile–profile alignment methods , 2004, Proteins.

[24]  M Levitt,et al.  Comprehensive assessment of automatic structural alignment against a manual standard, the scop classification of proteins , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[25]  Chris Sander,et al.  Removing near-neighbour redundancy from large protein sequence collections , 1998, Bioinform..