4.6 Article

Enhanced performance in prediction of protein active sites with THEMATICS and support vector machines

期刊

PROTEIN SCIENCE
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 333-341

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1110/ps.073213608

关键词

functional genomics; active sites; THEMATICS; SVM; site prediction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Theoretical microscopic titration curves (THEMATICS) is a computational method for the identification of active sites in proteins through deviations in computed titration behavior of ionizable residues. While the sensitivity to catalytic sites is high, the previously reported sensitivity to catalytic residues was not as high, about 50%. Here THEMATICS is combined with support vector machines (SVM) to improve sensitivity for catalytic residue prediction from protein 3D structure alone. For a test set of 64 proteins taken from the Catalytic Site Atlas (CSA), the average recall rate for annotated catalytic residues is 61%; good precision is maintained selecting only 4% of all residues. The average false positive rate, using the CSA annotations is only 3.2%, far lower than other 3D-structure-based methods. THEMATICS-SVM returns higher precision, lower false positive rate, and better overall performance, compared with other 3D-structure-based methods. Comparison is also made with the latest machine learning methods that are based on both sequence alignments and 3D structures. For annotated sets of well-characterized enzymes, THEMATICS-SVM performance compares very favorably with methods that utilize sequence homology. However, since THEMATICS depends only on the 3D structure of the query protein, no decline in performance is expected when applied to novel folds, proteins with few sequence homologues, or even orphan sequences. An extension of the method to predict non-ionizable catalytic residues is also presented. THEMATICS-SVM predicts a local network of ionizable residues with strong interactions between protonation events; this appears to be a special feature of enzyme active sites.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据