Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (Print PDF) Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (Screen PDF)
Right arrow Comments: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Park, J.
Right arrow Articles by Holm, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Park, J.
Right arrow Articles by Holm, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Bioinformatics Vol. 16 no. 11 2000
Pages 978-987
© 2000 Oxford University Press


Original Paper

Estimating the significance of sequence order in protein secondary structure and prediction

Jong Park 1,2,***, Sabine Dietmann 1, Andreas Heger 1 and Liisa Holm 1

1 The European Bioinformatics Institute, EMBL Outstation, Cambridge CB10 1SD, UK
2 Genetics, Harvard Medical School, 200 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA

Received on November 3, 1999 ; revised on April 24, 2000 ; accepted on June 20, 2000

Motivation: How critical is the sequence order information in predicting protein secondary structure segments? We tried to get a rough insight on it from a theoretical approach using both a prediction algorithm and structural fragments from Protein Databank (PDB).

Results: Using reverse protein sequences and PDB structural fragments, we theoretically estimated the significance of the order for protein secondary structure and prediction. On average: (1) 79% of protein sequence segments resulted in the same prediction in both normal and reverse directions, which indicated a relatively high conservation of secondary structure propensity in the reverse direction; (2) the reversed sequence prediction alone performed less accurately than the normal forward sequence prediction, but comparably high (2% difference); (3) the commonly predicted regions showed a slightly higher prediction accuracy (4%) than the normal sequences prediction; and (4) structural fragments which have counterparts in reverse direction in the same protein showed a comparable degree of secondary structure conservation (73% identity with reversed structures on average for pentamers).

Contact: jong{at}biosophy.org; dietmann{at}ebi.ac.uk; heger{at}ebi.ac.uk; holm{at}ebi.ac.uk

*** Present address: EBI, Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK. To whom correspondence should be addressed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.