Bioinformatics Advance Access originally published online on February 22, 2008
Bioinformatics 2008 24(7):924-931; doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn069
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A comprehensive assessment of sequence-based and template-based methods for protein contact prediction
Center for Bioinformatics and Department of Molecular Bioscience, University of Kansas, 2030 Becker Dr, Lawrence, KS 66047, USA
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Motivation: Pair-wise residue-residue contacts in proteins can be predicted from both threading templates and sequence-based machine learning. However, most structure modeling approaches only use the template-based contact predictions in guiding the simulations; this is partly because the sequence-based contact predictions are usually considered to be less accurate than that by threading. With the rapid progress in sequence databases and machine-learning techniques, it is necessary to have a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the contact-prediction methods in different template conditions.
Results: We develop two methods for protein-contact predictions: SVM-SEQ is a sequence-based machine learning approach which trains a variety of sequence-derived features on contact maps; SVM-LOMETS collects consensus contact predictions from multiple threading templates. We test both methods on the same set of 554 proteins which are categorized into ‘Easy’, ‘Medium’, ‘Hard’ and ‘Very Hard’ targets based on the evolutionary and structural distance between templates and targets. For the Easy and Medium targets, SVM-LOMETS obviously outperforms SVM-SEQ; but for the Hard and Very Hard targets, the accuracy of the SVM-SEQ predictions is higher than that of SVM-LOMETS by 12–25%. If we combine the SVM-SEQ and SVM-LOMETS predictions together, the total number of correctly predicted contacts in the Hard proteins will increase by more than 60% (or 70% for the long-range contact with a sequence separation 
24), compared with SVM-LOMETS alone. The advantage of SVM-SEQ is also shown in the CASP7 free modeling targets where the SVM-SEQ is around four times more accurate than SVM-LOMETS in the long-range contact prediction. These data demonstrate that the state-of-the-art sequence-based contact prediction has reached a level which may be helpful in assisting tertiary structure modeling for the targets which do not have close structure templates. The maximum yield should be obtained by the combination of both sequence- and template-based predictions.
Contact: yzhang{at}ku.edu
Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Associate Editor: Anna Tramontano
Received on December 13, 2007; revised on February 16, 2008; accepted on February 16, 2008
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. N. Tegge, Z. Wang, J. Eickholt, and J. Cheng NNcon: improved protein contact map prediction using 2D-recursive neural networks Nucleic Acids Res., July 1, 2009; 37(suppl_2): W515 - W518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Bjorkholm, P. Daniluk, A. Kryshtafovych, K. Fidelis, R. Andersson, and T. R. Hvidsten Using multi-data hidden Markov models trained on local neighborhoods of protein structure to predict residue-residue contacts Bioinformatics, May 15, 2009; 25(10): 1264 - 1270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. K. Ho, M. J. Kuiper, and R. Kotagiri PConPy--a Python module for generating 2D protein maps Bioinformatics, December 15, 2008; 24(24): 2934 - 2935. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|