Abstract

Several disorders are related to amyloid aggregation of proteins, for example Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s diseases. Amyloid proteins form fibrils of aggregated beta structures. This is preceded by formation of oligomers—the most cytotoxic species. Determining amyloidogenicity is tedious and costly. The most reliable identification of amyloids is obtained with high resolution microscopies, such as electron microscopy or atomic force microscopy (AFM). More frequently, less expensive and faster methods are used, especially infrared (IR) spectroscopy or Thioflavin T staining. Different experimental methods are not always concurrent, especially when amyloid peptides do not readily form fibrils but oligomers. This may lead to peptide misclassification and mislabeling. Several bioinformatics methods have been proposed for in-silico identification of amyloids, many of them based on machine learning. The effectiveness of these methods heavily depends on accurate annotation of the reference training data obtained from in-vitro experiments. We study how robust are bioinformatics methods to weak supervision, encountering imperfect training data. AmyloGram and three other amyloid predictors were applied. The results proved that a certain degree of misannotation in the reference data can be eliminated by the bioinformatics tools, even if they belonged to their training set. The computational results are supported by new experiments with IR and AFM methods.

Highlights

  • Several disorders are related to amyloid aggregation of proteins, for example Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s diseases

  • IR microscopy is a more precise method and was selected as our reference experimental method, we examined whether ATR-FTIR, which is a cheaper and a more widespread method, would provide different annotations of the peptides

  • The hexapeptide sequences were classified by bioinformatics methods, such as ­AmyloGram4, ­PATH41, ­FoldAmyloid[6], and PASTA 2.09

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Several disorders are related to amyloid aggregation of proteins, for example Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s diseases. The physical models, on the other hand, determine folding of proteins into fibrils and use structural ­constraints[7,8,9] All these methods first require reference data, i.e. a collection of sequences and/or structures of proteins labeled with their ability or inability to form amyloid fibrils. This information is crucial and its imperfection may introduce a bias into prediction m­ ethods[10]. High resolution microscopic techniques, such as atomic force microscopy (AFM) or transmission electron microscopy (TEM), allow for direct examination of amyloid fibril structures These methods are focused on their topology and mechanical. It is helpful if such methods are complemented with direct experimental verification

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call