Target selection and deselection at the Berkeley Structural Genomics Center

John‐Marc Chandonia; Sung‐Hou Kim; Steven E. Brenner

doi:10.1002/prot.20674

journal article Open Access Nov 07, 2005

Target selection and deselection at the Berkeley Structural Genomics Center

John‐Marc Chandonia Sung‐Hou Kim Steven E. Brenner

Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Vol. 62 No. 2 pp. 356-370 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1002/prot.20674

Abstract

AbstractAt the Berkeley Structural Genomics Center (BSGC), our goal is to obtain a near‐complete structural complement of proteins in the minimal organisms Mycoplasma genitalium and M. pneumoniae, two closely related pathogens. Current targets for structure determination have been selected in six major stages, starting with those predicted to be most tractable to high throughput study and likely to yield new structural information. We report on the process used to select these proteins, as well as our target deselection procedure. Target deselection reduces experimental effort by eliminating targets similar to those recently solved by the structural biology community or other centers. We measure the impact of the 69 structures solved at the BSGC as of July 2004 on structure prediction coverage of the M. pneumoniae and M. genitalium proteomes. The number of Mycoplasma proteins for which the fold could first be reliably assigned based on structures solved at the BSGC (24 M. pneumoniae and 21 M. genitalium) is approximately 25% of the total resulting from work at all structural genomics centers and the worldwide structural biology community (94 M. pneumoniae and 86 M. genitalium) during the same period. As the number of structures contributed by the BSGC during that period is less than 1% of the total worldwide output, the benefits of a focused target selection strategy are apparent. If the structures of all current targets were solved, the percentage of M. pneumoniae proteins for which folds could be reliably assigned would increase from approximately 57% (391 of 687) at present to around 80% (550 of 687), and the percentage of the proteome that could be accurately modeled would increase from around 37% (254 of 687) to about 64% (438 of 687). In M. genitalium, the percentage of the proteome that could be structurally annotated based on structures of our remaining targets would rise from 72% (348 of 486) to around 76% (371 of 486), with the percentage of accurately modeled proteins would rise from 50% (243 of 486) to 58% (283 of 486). Sequences and data on experimental progress on our targets are available in the public databases TargetDB and PEPCdb. Proteins 2006. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

61

[1]

10.1093/nar/24.22.4420

[2]

The Minimal Gene Complement of Mycoplasma genitalium

Claire M. Fraser, Jeannine D. Gocayne, Owen White et al.

Science 10.1126/science.270.5235.397

[3]

10.1146/annurev.genom.1.1.99

[4]

Peterson SN "A survey of the Mycoplasma genitalium genome by using random sequencing" J Bacteriol (1993) 10.1128/jb.175.24.7918-7930.1993

[5]

10.1126/science.286.5447.2165

[6]

10.1016/s0960-9822(02)00508-0

[7]

10.1111/j.1365-2958.1996.tb02529.x

[8]

Galperin MY "Sources of systematic error in functional annotation of genomes: domain rearrangement, non‐orthologous gene displacement and operon disruption" In Silico Biol (1998)

[9]

Errors in genome annotation

Steven E. Brenner

Trends in Genetics 10.1016/s0168-9525(99)01706-0

[10]

Proteomics of Mycoplasma genitalium: identification and characterization of unannotated and atypical proteins in a small model genome

S. Balasubramanian

Nucleic Acids Research 10.1093/nar/28.16.3075

[11]

GenTHREADER: an efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences

David T. Jones

Journal of Molecular Biology 10.1006/jmbi.1999.2583

[12]

Fold and function predictions for Mycoplasma genitalium proteins

Leszek Rychlewski, Baohong Zhang, Adam Godzik

Folding and Design 10.1016/s1359-0278(98)00034-0

[13]

10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00990-2

[14]

A tour of structural genomics

Steven E. Brenner

Nature Reviews Genetics 10.1038/35093574

[15]

tructural genomics of microbes: an objective

Sung-Hou Kim

Current Opinion in Structural Biology 10.1016/s0959-440x(00)00100-7

[16]

10.1128/jb.185.14.3994-4002.2003

[17]

10.2174/1568005023342551

[18]

Structural genomics: A pipeline for providing structures for the biologist

Mark R. Chance, Anne R. Bresnick, Stephen K. Burley et al.

Protein Science 10.1110/ps.4570102

[19]

Target space for structural genomics revisited

Jinfeng Liu, Burkhard Rost

Bioinformatics 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.7.922

[20]

Dennis Vitkup, Eugene Melamud, John Moult et al.

Nature Structural Biology 10.1038/88640

[21]

Automatic target selection for structural genomics on eukaryotes

Jinfeng Liu, Hedi Hegyi, Thomas B. Acton et al.

Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 10.1002/prot.20012

[22]

10.1002/0471721204.ch29

[23]

10.1093/protein/12.12.1029

[24]

10.1100/tsw.2002.33

[25]

Target Selection and Determination of Function in Structural Genomics

James Watson, Annabel Todd, James Bray et al.

IUBMB Life 10.1080/1521654031000123385

[26]

Structural genomics: opportunities and challenges

Peer R.E Mittl, Markus G Grütter

Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 10.1016/s1367-5931(00)00221-0

[27]

Steven E. Brenner

Nature Structural Biology 10.1038/80747

[28]

Structural genomics: an overview

Tom L Blundell, Kenji Mizuguchi

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 10.1016/s0079-6107(00)00008-0

[29]

Expectations from structural genomics

Steven E. Brenner, Ichael Levitt

Protein Science 10.1110/ps.9.1.197

[30]

Implications of structural genomics target selection strategies: Pfam5000, whole genome, and random approaches

John‐Marc Chandonia, Steven E. Brenner

Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 10.1002/prot.20298

[31]

10.1093/nar/25.4.701

[32]

TargetDB: a target registration database for structural genomics projects

Li Chen, Rose Oughtred, Helen M. Berman et al.

Bioinformatics 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth300

[33]

10.1093/nar/28.17.3278

[34]

10.1089/153623102321112773

[35]

The Protein Data Bank

H. M. Berman

Nucleic Acids Research 10.1093/nar/28.1.235

[36]

Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs

S. Altschul

Nucleic Acids Research 10.1093/nar/25.17.3389

[37]

The SWISS-PROT protein knowledgebase and its supplement TrEMBL in 2003

B. Boeckmann

Nucleic Acids Research 10.1093/nar/gkg095

[38]

Non-globular domains in protein sequences: Automated segmentation using complexity measures

John C. Wootton

Computers & Chemistry 10.1016/0097-8485(94)85023-2

[39]

10.1016/s0968-0004(01)02039-4

[40]

Improving the accuracy of PSI-BLAST protein database searches with composition-based statistics and other refinements

A. A. Schaffer

Nucleic Acids Research 10.1093/nar/29.14.2994

[41]

Basic local alignment search tool

Stephen F. Altschul, Warren Gish, Webb Miller et al.

Journal of Molecular Biology 10.1016/s0022-2836(05)80360-2

[42]

The Pfam protein families database

A. Bateman

Nucleic Acids Research 10.1093/nar/gkh121

[43]

Profile hidden Markov models.

S R Eddy

Bioinformatics 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.755

[44]

10.1016/s0076-6879(96)66032-7

[45]

Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden markov model: application to complete genomes11Edited by F. Cohen

Anders Krogh, Björn Larsson, Gunnar von Heijne et al.

Journal of Molecular Biology 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4315

[46]

Transmembrane helices predicted at 95% accuracy

Burkhard Rost, Chris Sander, Rita Casadio et al.

Protein Science 10.1002/pro.5560040318

[47]

The ASTRAL Compendium in 2004

J.-M. Chandonia

Nucleic Acids Research 10.1093/nar/gkh034

[48]

SCOP: A structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures

Alexey G. Murzin, Steven E. Brenner, Tim Hubbard et al.

Journal of Molecular Biology 10.1016/s0022-2836(05)80134-2

[49]

Inamine JM "Evidence that UGA is read as a tryptophan codon rather than as a stop codon by Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Mycoplasma genitalium, and Mycoplasma gallisepticum" J Bacteriol (1990) 10.1128/jb.172.1.504-506.1990

[50]

10.1111/j.1365-2958.1990.tb00636.x

Showing 50 of 61 references

Cited By

23

Upcoming challenges for multiple sequence alignment methods in the high-throughput era

Carsten Kemena, Cedric Notredame · 2009

Bioinformatics

A normalised scale for structural genomics target ranking: The OB‐Score

Ian M. Overton, Geoffrey J. Barton · 2006

FEBS Letters

Metrics

23

Citations

61

References

Details

Published: Nov 07, 2005
Vol/Issue: 62(2)
Pages: 356-370
License: View

Authors

Department of Plant and Microbial BiologyUniversity of California Berkeley California; Center for Computational BiologyUniversity of California Berkeley California

Cite This Article

John‐Marc Chandonia, Sung‐Hou Kim, Steven E. Brenner (2005). Target selection and deselection at the Berkeley Structural Genomics Center. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 62(2), 356-370. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20674

Target selection and deselection at the Berkeley Structural Genomics Center

You May Also Like