
doi: 10.1002/prot.10129
pmid: 12012336
Abstract The ultimate goal of structural genomics is to obtain the structure of each protein coded by each gene within a genome to determine gene function. Because of cost and time limitations, it remains impractical to solve the structure for every gene product experimentally. Up to a point, reasonably accurate three‐dimensional structures can be deduced for proteins with homologous sequences by using comparative modeling. Beyond this, fold recognition or threading methods can be used for proteins showing little homology to any known fold, although this is relatively time‐consuming and limited by the library of template folds currently available. Therefore, it is appropriate to develop methods that can increase our knowledge base, expanding our fold libraries by earmarking potentially “novel” folds for experimental structure determination. How can we sift through proteomic data rapidly and yet reliably identify novel folds as targets for structural genomics? We have analyzed a number of simple methods that discriminate between “novel” and “known” folds. We propose that simple alignments of secondary structure elements using predicted secondary structure could potentially be a more selective method than both a simple fold recognition method (GenTHREADER) and standard sequence alignment at finding novel folds when sequences show no detectable homology to proteins with known structures. Proteins 2002;48:44–52. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Protein Folding, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Animals, Proteins, Genomics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sequence Alignment, Protein Structure, Secondary, Protein Structure, Tertiary
Protein Folding, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Animals, Proteins, Genomics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sequence Alignment, Protein Structure, Secondary, Protein Structure, Tertiary
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 26 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
