This opinion article addresses a major issue in molecular biology and drug discovery by highlighting the complications that arise from combining polyproteins and their functional products within the same database entry. This problem, exemplified by the discovery of novel inhibitors for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) main protease, has an influence on our ability to retrieve precise data and hinders the development of targeted therapies. It also emphasizes the need for improved database practices and underscores their significance in advancing scientific research. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need of learning from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in order to improve global preparedness for future health crises.

UNLABELLED: Decoys are molecules that are presumed to be inactive against a target (i.e. will not likely bind to the target) and are used to validate the performance of molecular docking or a virtual screening workflow. The Directory of Useful Decoys database (http://dud.docking.org/) provides a free directory of decoys for use in virtual screening, though it only contains a limited set of decoys for 40 targets.To overcome this limitation, we have developed an application called DecoyFinder that selects, for a given collection of active ligands of a target, a set of decoys from a database of compounds. Decoys are selected if they are similar to active ligands according to five physical descriptors (molecular weight, number of rotational bonds, total hydrogen bond donors, total hydrogen bond acceptors and the octanol-water partition coefficient) without being chemically similar to any of the active ligands used as an input (according to the Tanimoto coefficient between MACCS fingerprints). To the best of our knowledge, DecoyFinder is the first application designed to build target-specific decoy sets. AVAILABILITY: A complete description of the software is included on the application home page. A validation of DecoyFinder on 10 DUD targets is provided as Supplementary Table S1. DecoyFinder is freely available at http://URVnutrigenomica-CTNS.github.com/DecoyFinder.

BACKGROUND: The Codon Adaptation Index (CAI) is a measure of the synonymous codon usage bias for a DNA or RNA sequence. It quantifies the similarity between the synonymous codon usage of a gene and the synonymous codon frequency of a reference set. Extreme values in the nucleotide or in the amino acid composition have a large impact on differential preference for synonymous codons. It is thence essential to define the limits for the expected value of CAI on the basis of sequence composition in order to properly interpret the CAI and provide statistical support to CAI analyses. Though several freely available programs calculate the CAI for a given DNA sequence, none of them corrects for compositional biases or provides confidence intervals for CAI values. RESULTS: The E-CAI server, available at http://genomes.urv.es/CAIcal/E-CAI, is a web-application that calculates an expected value of CAI for a set of query sequences by generating random sequences with G+C and amino acid content similar to those of the input. An executable file, a tutorial, a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section and several examples are also available. To exemplify the use of the E-CAI server, we have analysed the codon adaptation of human mitochondrial genes that codify a subunit of the mitochondrial respiratory chain (excluding those genes that lack a prokaryotic orthologue) and are encoded in the nuclear genome. It is assumed that these genes were transferred from the proto-mitochondrial to the nuclear genome and that its codon usage was then ameliorated. CONCLUSION: The E-CAI server provides a direct threshold value for discerning whether the differences in CAI are statistically significant or whether they are merely artifacts that arise from internal biases in the G+C composition and/or amino acid composition of the query sequences.

Abstract Summary: TOPD/FMTS has been developed to evaluate similarities and differences between phylogenetic trees. The software implements several new algorithms (including the Disagree method that returns the taxa, that disagree between two trees and the Nodal method that compares two trees using nodal information) and several previously described methods (such as the Partition method, Triplets or Quartets) to compare phylogenetic trees. One of the novelties of this software is that the FMTS (From Multiple to Single) program allows the comparison of trees that contain both orthologs and paralogs. Each option is also complemented with a randomization analysis to test the null hypothesis that the similarity between two trees is not better than chance expectation. Availability: The Perl source code of TOPD/FMTS is available at http://genomes.urv.es/topd. Contact: [email protected] Supplementary information: A complete tutorial and several examples of how to use the software have been included on the home page of the application.

BACKGROUND: Amino acids in proteins are not used equally. Some of the differences in the amino acid composition of proteins are between species (mainly due to nucleotide composition and lifestyle) and some are between proteins from the same species (related to protein function, expression or subcellular localization, for example). As several factors contribute to the different amino acid usage in proteins, it is difficult both to analyze these differences and to separate the contributions made by each factor. RESULTS: Using a multi-way method called Tucker3, we have analyzed the amino composition of a set of 64 orthologous groups of proteins present in 62 archaea and bacteria. This dataset corresponds to essential proteins such as ribosomal proteins, tRNA synthetases and translational initiation or elongation factors, which are common to all the species analyzed. The Tucker3 model can be used to study the amino acid variability within and between species by taking into consideration the tridimensionality of the data set. We found that the main factor behind the amino acid composition of proteins is independent of the organism or protein function analyzed. This factor must be related to the biochemical characteristics of each amino acid. The difference between the non-ribosomal proteins and the ribosomal proteins (which are rich in arginine and lysine) is the main factor behind the differences in amino acid composition within species, while G+C content and optimal growth temperature are the main factors behind the differences in amino acid usage between species. CONCLUSION: We show that a multi-way method is useful for comparing the amino acid composition of several groups of orthologous proteins from the same group of species. This kind of dataset is extremely useful for detecting differences between and within species.