SUMMARY: The DOMIRE web server implements a novel, automatic, protein structural domain assignment procedure based on 3D substructures of the query protein which are also found within structures of a non-redundant protein database. These common 3D substructures are transformed into a co-occurrence matrix that offers a global view of the protein domain organization. Three different algorithms are employed to define structural domain boundaries from this co-occurrence matrix. For each query, a list of structural neighbors and their alignments are provided. DOMIRE, by displaying the protein structural domain organization, can be a useful tool for defining protein common cores and for unravelling the evolutionary relationship between different proteins. AVAILABILITY: http://genome.jouy.inra.fr/domire CONTACT: [email protected].

BACKGROUND: Formal classification of a large collection of protein structures aids the understanding of evolutionary relationships among them. Classifications involving manual steps, such as SCOP and CATH, face the challenge of increasing volume of available structures. Automatic methods such as FSSP or Dali Domain Dictionary, yield divergent classifications, for reasons not yet fully investigated. One possible reason is that the pairwise similarity scores used in automatic classification do not adequately reflect the judgments made in manual classification. Another possibility is the difference between manual and automatic classification procedures. We explore the degree to which these two factors might affect the final classification. RESULTS: We use DALI, SHEBA and VAST pairwise scores on the SCOP C class domains, to investigate a variety of hierarchical clustering procedures. The constructed dendrogram is cut in a variety of ways to produce a partition, which is compared to the SCOP fold classification.Ward's method dendrograms led to partitions closest to the SCOP fold classification. Dendrogram- or tree-cutting strategies fell into four categories according to the similarity of resulting partitions to the SCOP fold partition. Two strategies which optimize similarity to SCOP, gave an average of 72% true positives rate (TPR), at a 1% false positive rate. Cutting the largest size cluster at each step gave an average of 61% TPR which was one of the best strategies not making use of prior knowledge of SCOP. Cutting the longest branch at each step produced one of the worst strategies. We also developed a method to detect irreducible differences between the best possible automatic partitions and SCOP, regardless of the cutting strategy. These differences are substantial. Visual examination of hard-to-classify proteins confirms our previous finding, that global structural similarity of domains is not the only criterion used in the SCOP classification. CONCLUSION: Different clustering procedures give rise to different levels of agreement between automatic and manual protein classifications. None of the tested procedures completely eliminates the divergence between automatic and manual protein classifications. Achieving full agreement between these two approaches would apparently require additional information.

MOTIVATION: Affymetrix microarrays are widely used to measure global expression of mRNA transcripts. That technology is based on the concept of a probe set. Individual probes within a probe set were originally designated by Affymetrix to hybridize with the same unique mRNA transcript. Because of increasing accuracy in knowledge of genomic sequences, however, a substantial number of the manufacturer's original probe groupings and mappings are now known to be inaccurate and must be corrected. Otherwise, analysis and interpretation of an Affymetrix microarray experiment will be in error. RESULTS: AffyProbeMiner is a computationally efficient platform-independent tool that uses all RefSeq mature RNA protein coding transcripts and validated complete coding sequences in GenBank to (1) regroup the individual probes into consistent probe sets and (2) remap the probe sets to the correct sets of mRNA transcripts. The individual probes are grouped into probe sets that are 'transcript-consistent' in that they hybridize to the same mRNA transcript (or transcripts) and, therefore, measure the same entity (or entities). About 65.6% of the probe sets on the HG-U133A chip were affected by the remapping. Pre-computed regrouped and remapped probe sets for many Affymetrix microarrays are made freely available at the AffyProbeMiner web site. Alternatively, we provide a web service that enables the user to perform the remapping for any type of short-oligo commercial or custom array that has an Affymetrix-format Chip Definition File (CDF). Important features that differentiate AffyProbeMiner from other approaches are flexibility in the handling of splice variants, computational efficiency, extensibility, customizability and user-friendliness of the interface. AVAILABILITY: The web interface and software (GPL open source license), are publicly-accessible at http://discover.nci.nih.gov/affyprobeminer.

BACKGROUND: Current classification of protein folds are based, ultimately, on visual inspection of similarities. Previous attempts to use computerized structure comparison methods show only partial agreement with curated databases, but have failed to provide detailed statistical and structural analysis of the causes of these divergences. RESULTS: We construct a map of similarities/dissimilarities among manually defined protein folds, using a score cutoff value determined by means of the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve. It identifies folds which appear to overlap or to be "confused" with each other by two distinct similarity measures. It also identifies folds which appear inhomogeneous in that they contain apparently dissimilar domains, as measured by both similarity measures. At a low (1%) false positive rate, 25 to 38% of domain pairs in the same SCOP folds do not appear similar. Our results suggest either that some of these folds are defined using criteria other than purely structural consideration or that the similarity measures used do not recognize some relevant aspects of structural similarity in certain cases. Specifically, variations of the "common core" of some folds are severe enough to defeat attempts to automatically detect structural similarity and/or to lead to false detection of similarity between domains in distinct folds. Structures in some folds vary greatly in size because they contain varying numbers of a repeating unit, while similarity scores are quite sensitive to size differences. Structures in different folds may contain similar substructures, which produce false positives. Finally, the common core within a structure may be too small relative to the entire structure, to be recognized as the basis of similarity to another. CONCLUSION: A detailed analysis of the entire available protein fold space by two automated similarity methods reveals the extent and the nature of the divergence between the automatically determined similarity/dissimilarity and the manual fold type classifications. Some of the observed divergences can probably be addressed with better structure comparison methods and better automatic, intelligent classification procedures. Others may be intrinsic to the problem, suggesting a continuous rather than discrete protein fold space.

MOTIVATION: A method for recognizing the three-dimensional fold from the protein amino acid sequence based on a combination of hidden Markov models (HMMs) and secondary structure prediction was recently developed for proteins in the Mainly-Alpha structural class. Here, this methodology is extended to Mainly-Beta and Alpha-Beta class proteins. Compared to other fold recognition methods based on HMMs, this approach is novel in that only secondary structure information is used. Each HMM is trained from known secondary structure sequences of proteins having a similar fold. Secondary structure prediction is performed for the amino acid sequence of a query protein. The predicted fold of a query protein is the fold described by the model fitting the predicted sequence the best. RESULTS: After model cross-validation, the success rate on 44 test proteins covering the three structural classes was found to be 59%. On seven fold predictions performed prior to the publication of experimental structure, the success rate was 71%. In conclusion, this approach manages to capture important information about the fold of a protein embedded in the length and arrangement of the predicted helices, strands and coils along the polypeptide chain. When a more extensive library of HMMs representing the universe of known structural families is available (work in progress), the program will allow rapid screening of genomic databases and sequence annotation when fold similarity is not detectable from the amino acid sequence. AVAILABILITY: FORESST web server at http://absalpha.dcrt.nih.gov:8008/ for the library of HMMs of structural families used in this paper. FORESST web server at http://www.tigr.org/ for a more extensive library of HMMs (work in progress). CONTACT: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

The rigorous alignment of multiple protein sequences becomes impractical even with a modest number of sequences, since computer memory and time requirements increase as the product of the lengths of the sequences. We have devised a strategy to approach such an optimal alignment, which modifies the intensive computer storage and time requirements of dynamic programming. Our algorithm randomly divides a group of unaligned sequences into two subgroups, between which an optimal alignment is then obtained by a Needleman-Wunsch style of algorithm. Our algorithm uses a matrix with dimensions corresponding to the lengths of the two aligned sequence subgroups. The pairwise alignment process is repeated using different random divisions of the whole group into two subgroups. Compared with the rigorous approach of solving the n-dimensional lattice by dynamic programming, our iterative algorithm results in alignments that match or are close to the optimal solution, on a limited set of test problems. We have implemented this algorithm in a computer program that runs on the IBM PC class of machines, together with a user-friendly environment for interactively selecting sequences or groups of sequences to be aligned either simultaneously or progressively.