Protein Structure Alignment Methods Research Articles

Benchmarking Methods of Protein Structure Alignment

The function of a protein is primarily determined by its structure and amino acid sequence. Many biological questions of interest rely on being able to accurately determine the group of structures to which domains of a protein belong; this can be done through alignment and comparison of protein structures. Dozens of different methods for Protein Structure Alignment (PSA) have been proposed that use a wide range of techniques. The aim of this study is to determine the ability of PSA methods to identify pairs of protein domains known to share differing levels of structural similarity, and to assess their utility for clustering domains from several different folds into known groups. We present the results of a comprehensive investigation into eighteen PSA methods, to our knowledge the largest piece of independent research on this topic. Overall, SP-AlignNS (non-sequential) was found to be the best method for classification, and among the best performing methods for clustering. Methods (where possible) were split into the algorithm used to find the optimal alignment and the score used to assess similarity. This allowed us to largely separate the algorithm from the score it maximizes and thus, to assess their effectiveness independently of each other. Surprisingly, we found that some hybrids of mismatched scores and algorithms performed better than either of the native methods at classification and, in some cases, clustering as well. It is hoped that this investigation and the accompanying discussion will be useful for researchers selecting or designing methods to align protein structures.

Using Variable-Length Aligned Fragment Pairs and an Improved Transition Function for Flexible Protein Structure Alignment.

With the rapid growth of known protein 3D structures in number, how to efficiently compare protein structures becomes an essential and challenging problem in computational structural biology. At present, many protein structure alignment methods have been developed. Among all these methods, flexible structure alignment methods are shown to be superior to rigid structure alignment methods in identifying structure similarities between proteins, which have gone through conformational changes. It is also found that the methods based on aligned fragment pairs (AFPs) have a special advantage over other approaches in balancing global structure similarities and local structure similarities. Accordingly, we propose a new flexible protein structure alignment method based on variable-length AFPs. Compared with other methods, the proposed method possesses three main advantages. First, it is based on variable-length AFPs. The length of each AFP is separately determined to maximally represent a local similar structure fragment, which reduces the number of AFPs. Second, it uses local coordinate systems, which simplify the computation at each step of the expansion of AFPs during the AFP identification. Third, it decreases the number of twists by rewarding the situation where nonconsecutive AFPs share the same transformation in the alignment, which is realized by dynamic programming with an improved transition function. The experimental data show that compared with FlexProt, FATCAT, and FlexSnap, the proposed method can achieve comparable results by introducing fewer twists. Meanwhile, it can generate results similar to those of the FATCAT method in much less running time due to the reduced number of AFPs.

Structure alignment of membrane proteins: Accuracy of available tools and a consensus strategy.

Protein structure alignment methods are used for the detection of evolutionary and functionally related positions in proteins. A wide array of different methods are available, but the choice of the best method is often not apparent to the user. Several studies have assessed the alignment accuracy and consistency of structure alignment methods, but none of these explicitly considered membrane proteins, which are important targets for drug development and have distinct structural features. Here, we compared 13 widely used pairwise structural alignment methods on a test set of homologous membrane protein structures (called HOMEP3). Each pair of structures was aligned and the corresponding sequence alignment was used to construct homology models. The model accuracy compared to the known structures was assessed using scoring functions not incorporated in the tested structural alignment methods. The analysis shows that fragment-based approaches such as FR-TM-align are the most useful for aligning structures of membrane proteins. Moreover, fragment-based approaches are more suitable for comparison of protein structures that have undergone large conformational changes. Nevertheless, no method was clearly superior to all other methods. Additionally, all methods lack a measure to rate the reliability of a position within a structure alignment. To solve both of these problems, we propose a consensus-type approach, combining alignments from four different methods, namely FR-TM-align, DaliLite, MATT, and FATCAT. Agreement between the methods is used to assign confidence values to each position of the alignment. Overall, we conclude that there remains scope for the improvement of structural alignment methods for membrane proteins.

The accuracy of protein structure alignment servers

Normal 0 21 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Background: Protein structural alignment is one of the most fundamental and crucial areas of research in the domain of computational structural biology. Comparison of a protein structure with known structures helps to classify it as a new or belonging to a known group of proteins. This, in turn, is useful to determine the function of protein, its evolutionary relationship with other protein molecules and grasping principles underlying protein architecture and folding. Results: A large number of protein structure alignment methods are available. Each protein structure alignment tool has its own strengths and weaknesses that need to be highlighted. We compared and presented results of six most popular and publically available servers for protein structure comparison. These web-based servers were compared with the respect to functionality (features provided by these servers) and accuracy (how well the structural comparison is performed). The CATH was used as a reference. The results showed that overall CE was top performer. DALI and PhyreStorm showed similar results whereas PDbeFold showed the lowest performance. In case of few secondary structural elements, CE , DALI and PhyreStorm gave 100% success rate. Conclusion: Overall none of the structural alignment servers showed 100% success rate. Studies of overall performance, effect of mainly alpha and effect of mainly beta showed consistent performance. CE, DALI, FatCat and PhyreStorm showed more than 90% success rate. /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:Tabla normal; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

CAB-Align: A Flexible Protein Structure Alignment Method Based on the Residue-Residue Contact Area.

Proteins are flexible, and this flexibility has an essential functional role. Flexibility can be observed in loop regions, rearrangements between secondary structure elements, and conformational changes between entire domains. However, most protein structure alignment methods treat protein structures as rigid bodies. Thus, these methods fail to identify the equivalences of residue pairs in regions with flexibility. In this study, we considered that the evolutionary relationship between proteins corresponds directly to the residue–residue physical contacts rather than the three-dimensional (3D) coordinates of proteins. Thus, we developed a new protein structure alignment method, contact area-based alignment (CAB-align), which uses the residue–residue contact area to identify regions of similarity. The main purpose of CAB-align is to identify homologous relationships at the residue level between related protein structures. The CAB-align procedure comprises two main steps: First, a rigid-body alignment method based on local and global 3D structure superposition is employed to generate a sufficient number of initial alignments. Then, iterative dynamic programming is executed to find the optimal alignment. We evaluated the performance and advantages of CAB-align based on four main points: (1) agreement with the gold standard alignment, (2) alignment quality based on an evolutionary relationship without 3D coordinate superposition, (3) consistency of the multiple alignments, and (4) classification agreement with the gold standard classification. Comparisons of CAB-align with other state-of-the-art protein structure alignment methods (TM-align, FATCAT, and DaliLite) using our benchmark dataset showed that CAB-align performed robustly in obtaining high-quality alignments and generating consistent multiple alignments with high coverage and accuracy rates, and it performed extremely well when discriminating between homologous and nonhomologous pairs of proteins in both single and multi-domain comparisons. The CAB-align software is freely available to academic users as stand-alone software at http://www.pharm.kitasato-u.ac.jp/bmd/bmd/Publications.html.

Structure alignment of membrane proteins: Accuracy of available tools and a consensus strategy.

Protein structure alignment methods are used for the detection of evolutionary and functionally related positions in proteins. A wide array of different methods are available, but the choice of the best method is often not apparent to the user. Several studies have assessed the alignment accuracy and consistency of structure alignment methods, but none of these explicitly considered membrane proteins, which are important targets for drug development and have distinct structural features. Here, we compared 13 widely used pairwise structural alignment methods on a test set of homologous membrane protein structures (called HOMEP3). Each pair of structures was aligned and the corresponding sequence alignment was used to construct homology models. The model accuracy compared to the known structures was assessed using scoring functions not incorporated in the tested structural alignment methods. The analysis shows that fragment-based approaches such as FR-TM-align are the most useful for aligning structures of membrane proteins. Moreover, fragment-based approaches are more suitable for comparison of protein structures that have undergone large conformational changes. Nevertheless, no method was clearly superior to all other methods. Additionally, all methods lack a measure to rate the reliability of a position within a structure alignment. To solve both of these problems, we propose a consensus-type approach, combining alignments from four different methods, namely FR-TM-align, DaliLite, MATT, and FATCAT. Agreement between the methods is used to assign confidence values to each position of the alignment. Overall, we conclude that there remains scope for the improvement of structural alignment methods for membrane proteins.

UniAlign: protein structure alignment meets evolution.

During the evolution, functional sites on the surface of the protein as well as the hydrophobic core maintaining the structural integrity are well-conserved. However, available protein structure alignment methods align protein structures based solely on the 3D geometric similarity, limiting their ability to detect functionally relevant correspondences between the residues of the proteins, especially for distantly related homologous proteins. In this article, we propose a new protein pairwise structure alignment algorithm (UniAlign) that incorporates additional evolutionary information captured in the form of sequence similarity, sequence profiles and residue conservation. We define a per-residue score (UniScore) as a weighted sum of these and other features and develop an iterative optimization procedure to search for an alignment with the best overall UniScore. Our extensive experiments on CDD, HOMSTRAD and BAliBASE benchmark datasets show that UniAlign outperforms commonly used structure alignment methods. We further demonstrate UniAlign's ability to develop family-specific models to drastically improve the quality of the alignments. UniAlign is available as a web service at: http://sacan.biomed.drexel.edu/unialign ahmet.sacan@drexel.edu Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Efficient Protein Structure Alignment Methods Based on a Structural Alphabet

The increasing number of available protein structures requires efficient tools for protein structure comparison. Indeed, pairwise and multiple structural alignments are essential for the analysis of function, evolution and architecture of protein structures. We have developed methods for pairwise and multiple structure comparisons largely based on sequence alignment techniques. A widely used Structural Alphabet named Protein Blocks (PBs) was used to transform the information on 3D protein backbone conformation as a 1D sequence string. A sequence alignment procedure based on dynamic programming was developed and named iPBA. The main adaptations of the procedure consist in using a dedicated PB Substitution Matrix, by weighting local similar stretches and by coupling linearly amino acid substitutions scores with PB substitutions. The resulting pairwise alignments were compared with DALI and MUSTANG and showed a significant improvement in 81.3% of the cases (Joseph, Srinivasan, de Brevern, Biochimie, 2011). A progressive alignment strategy similar to CLUSTALW was adopted for multiple PB sequence alignment, namely mulPBA. Highly similar stretches identified by the pairwise alignments are favored by higher weights during the alignment. The residue equivalences from PB based alignments are used to obtain a 3D-fit of the structures followed by an iterative refinement of the structural superposition. The method was benchmarked on different datasets used by similar approaches. The alignment quality is better than with MULTIPROT, MUSTANG and those within HOMSTRAD, in more than 85% of the cases. Comparison with other rigid-body and flexible approaches demonstrate that mulPBA alignments are superior to most rigid-body approaches and highly comparable to flexible alignment methods (Joseph, Srinivasan, de Brevern, Biochimie, 2012). These methods are implemented in two dedicated web servers (Gelly, Joseph, Srinivasan, de Brevern, Nucl Acid Res, 2011; Leonard, Joseph, Srinivasan, Gelly, de Brevern, JBSD, 2013).

MulPBA: an efficient multiple protein structure alignment method based on a structural alphabet

The increasing number of available protein structures requires efficient tools for multiple structure comparison. Indeed, multiple structural alignments are essential for the analysis of function, evolution and architecture of protein structures. For this purpose, we proposed a new web server called multiple Protein Block Alignment (mulPBA). This server implements a method based on a structural alphabet to describe the backbone conformation of a protein chain in terms of dihedral angles. This ‘sequence-like’ representation enables the use of powerful sequence alignment methods for primary structure comparison, followed by an iterative refinement of the structural superposition. This approach yields alignments superior to most of the rigid-body alignment methods and highly comparable with the flexible structure comparison approaches. We implement this method in a web server designed to do multiple structure superimpositions from a set of structures given by the user. Outputs are given as both sequence alignment and superposed 3D structures visualized directly by static images generated by PyMol or through a Jmol applet allowing dynamic interaction. Multiple global quality measures are given. Relatedness between structures is indicated by a distance dendogram. Superimposed structures in PDB format can be also downloaded, and the results are quickly obtained. mulPBA server can be accessed at www.dsimb.inserm.fr/dsimb_tools/mulpba/.

GIRAF: a method for fast search and flexible alignment of ligand binding interfaces in proteins at atomic resolution.

Comparison and classification of protein structures are fundamental means to understand protein functions. Due to the computational difficulty and the ever-increasing amount of structural data, however, it is in general not feasible to perform exhaustive all-against-all structure comparisons necessary for comprehensive classifications. To efficiently handle such situations, we have previously proposed a method, now called GIRAF. We herein describe further improvements in the GIRAF protein structure search and alignment method. The GIRAF method achieves extremely efficient search of similar structures of ligand binding sites of proteins by exploiting database indexing of structural features of local coordinate frames. In addition, it produces refined atom-wise alignments by iterative applications of the Hungarian method to the bipartite graph defined for a pair of superimposed structures. By combining the refined alignments based on different local coordinate frames, it is made possible to align structures involving domain movements. We provide detailed accounts for the database design, the search and alignment algorithms as well as some benchmark results.

OPTIMAL PAIRWISE ALIGNMENT OF FIXED PROTEIN STRUCTURES IN SUBQUADRATIC TIME

The problem of finding an optimal structural alignment for a pair of superimposed proteins is often amenable to the Smith-Waterman dynamic programming algorithm, which runs in time proportional to the product of lengths of the sequences being aligned. While the quadratic running time is acceptable for computing a single alignment of two fixed protein structures, the time complexity becomes a bottleneck when running the Smith-Waterman routine multiple times in order to find a globally optimal superposition and alignment of the input proteins. We present a subquadratic running time algorithm capable of computing an alignment that optimizes one of the most widely used measures of protein structure similarity, defined as the number of pairs of residues in two proteins that can be superimposed under a predefined distance cutoff. The algorithm presented in this article can be used to significantly improve the speed-accuracy tradeoff in a number of popular protein structure alignment methods.

Validity of Protein Structure Alignment Method Based on Backbone Torsion Angles

Previous researches noticed that a 3D backbone structure can be mathematically represented with a 1D ? and ? dihedral angle array. However, performance of the backbone dihedral angle alignment was not supported with sufficiently large test sets to be quantified; i.e. only 2 pairs or 4 pairs of proteins were analyzed. Here we showed that it is more effective to accurately anticipate homology among 1891 pairs of proteins of 62 different proteases with the string of ? and ? dihedral angle array than famous 3D structural alignment tool TM-align. Gapless global alignment between protein structures was conducted to validate the effectiveness of performing structural alignment with strings of backbone torsion angles. Representation of 3D structure by 1D torsion angle strings allows local alignment, profile construction, hidden Markov models to be implemented with minor modifications and with almost no loss of speed compared with sequence alignment. By our further validation from the previous studies, the utility of backbone dihedral angle method could be more evident.

Accuracy analysis of multiple structure alignments

Protein structure alignment methods are essential for many different challenges in protein science, such as the determination of relations between proteins in the fold space or the analysis and prediction of their biological function. A number of different pairwise and multiple structure alignment (MStA) programs have been developed and provided to the community. Prior knowledge of the expected alignment accuracy is desirable for the user of such tools. To retrieve an estimate of the performance of current structure alignment methods, we compiled a test suite taken from literature and the SISYPHUS database consisting of proteins that are difficult to align. Subsequently, different MStA programs were evaluated regarding alignment correctness and general limitations. The analysis shows that there are large differences in the success between the methods in terms of applicability and correctness. The latter ranges from 44 to 75% correct core positions. Taking only the best method result per test case this number increases to 84%. We conclude that the methods available are applicable to difficult cases, but also that there is still room for improvements in both, practicability and alignment correctness. An approach that combines the currently available methods supported by a proper score would be useful. Until then, a user should not rely on just a single program.

Flexible structural protein alignment by a sequence of local transformations

Motivation: Throughout evolution, homologous proteins have common regions that stay semi-rigid relative to each other and other parts that vary in a more noticeable way. In order to compare the increasing number of structures in the PDB, flexible geometrical alignments are needed, that are reliable and easy to use.Results: We present a protein structure alignment method whose main feature is the ability to consider different rigid transformations at different sites, allowing for deformations beyond a global rigid transformation. The performance of the method is comparable with that of the best ones from 10 aligners tested, regarding both the quality of the alignments with respect to hand curated ones, and the classification ability. An analysis of some structure pairs from the literature that need to be matched in a flexible fashion are shown. The use of a series of local transformations can be exported to other classifiers, and a future golden protein similarity measure could benefit from it.Availability: A public server for the program is available at http://dmi.uib.es/ProtDeform/.Contact: jairo@uib.esSupplementary information: All data used, results and examples are available at http://dmi.uib.es/people/jairo/bio/ProtDeform.Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

MatAlign: PRECISE PROTEIN STRUCTURE COMPARISON BY MATRIX ALIGNMENT

We propose a detailed protein structure alignment method named "MatAlign". It is a two-step algorithm. Firstly, we represent 3D protein structures as 2D distance matrices, and align these matrices by means of dynamic programming in order to find the initially aligned residue pairs. Secondly, we refine the initial alignment iteratively into the optimal one according to an objective scoring function. We compare our method against DALI and CE, which are among the most accurate and the most widely used of the existing structural comparison tools. On the benchmark set of 68 protein structure pairs by Fischer et al., MatAlign provides better alignment results, according to four different criteria, than both DALI and CE in a majority of cases. MatAlign also performs as well in structural database search as DALI does, and much better than CE does. MatAlign is about two to three times faster than DALI, and has about the same speed as CE. The software and the supplementary information for this paper are available at http://xena1.ddns.comp.nus.edu.sg/~genesis/MatAlign/.

Comprehensive Evaluation of Protein Structure Alignment Methods: Scoring by Geometric Measures

We report the largest and most comprehensive comparison of protein structural alignment methods. Specifically, we evaluate six publicly available structure alignment programs: SSAP, STRUCTAL, DALI, LSQMAN, CE and SSM by aligning all 8,581,970 protein structure pairs in a test set of 2930 protein domains specially selected from CATH v.2.4 to ensure sequence diversity. We consider an alignment good if it matches many residues, and the two substructures are geometrically similar. Even with this definition, evaluating structural alignment methods is not straightforward. At first, we compared the rates of true and false positives using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with the CATH classification taken as a gold standard. This proved unsatisfactory in that the quality of the alignments is not taken into account: sometimes a method that finds less good alignments scores better than a method that finds better alignments. We correct this intrinsic limitation by using four different geometric match measures (SI, MI, SAS, and GSAS) to evaluate the quality of each structural alignment. With this improved analysis we show that there is a wide variation in the performance of different methods; the main reason for this is that it can be difficult to find a good structural alignment between two proteins even when such an alignment exists. We find that STRUCTAL and SSM perform best, followed by LSQMAN and CE. Our focus on the intrinsic quality of each alignment allows us to propose a new method, called "Best-of-All" that combines the best results of all methods. Many commonly used methods miss 10-50% of the good Best-of-All alignments. By putting existing structural alignments into proper perspective, our study allows better comparison of protein structures. By highlighting limitations of existing methods, it will spur the further development of better structural alignment methods. This will have significant biological implications now that structural comparison has come to play a central role in the analysis of experimental work on protein structure, protein function and protein evolution.