4.5 Article

A guideline to proteome-wide α-helical membrane protein topology predictions

期刊

PROTEOMICS
卷 12, 期 14, 页码 2282-2294

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201100495

关键词

Bioinformatics; Genome analysis; a-Helical; Membrane; Membrane proteins; Topology predictors

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [VR-NT 2009-5072, VR-M 2010-3555]
  2. SSF (the Foundation for Strategic Research)
  3. EU [FP7-HEALTH-F4-2007-201924]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For current state-of-the-art methods, the prediction of correct topology of membrane proteins has been reported to be above 80%. However, this performance has only been observed in small and possibly biased data sets obtained from protein structures or biochemical assays. Here, we test a number of topology predictors on an unseen set of proteins of known structure and also on four genome-scale data sets, including one recent large set of experimentally validated human membrane proteins with glycosylated sites. The set of glycosylated proteins is also used to examine the ability of prediction methods to separate membrane from nonmembrane proteins. The results show that methods utilizing multiple sequence alignments are overall superior to methods that do not. The best performance is obtained by TOPCONS, a consensus method that combines several of the other prediction methods. The best methods to distinguish membrane from nonmembrane proteins belong to the Phobius group of predictors. We further observe that the reported high accuracies in the smaller benchmark sets are not quite maintained in larger scale benchmarks. Instead, we estimate the performance of the best prediction methods for eukaryotic membrane proteins to be between 60% and 70%. The low agreement between predictions from different methods questions earlier estimates about the global properties of the membrane proteome. Finally, we suggest a pipeline to estimate these properties using a combination of the best predictors that could be applied in large-scale proteomics studies of membrane proteins.

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

4.5
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