Premium
Current status of membrane protein structure classification
Author(s) -
Neumann Sindy,
Fuchs Angelika,
Mulkidjanian Armen,
Frishman Dmitrij
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
proteins: structure, function, and bioinformatics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.699
H-Index - 191
eISSN - 1097-0134
pISSN - 0887-3585
DOI - 10.1002/prot.22692
Subject(s) - membrane protein , transmembrane domain , helix bundle , helix (gastropod) , transmembrane protein , structural classification of proteins database , protein structure , lipid bilayer , membrane , biology , chemistry , crystallography , computational biology , biophysics , biochemistry , ecology , receptor , snail
For over 2 decades, continuous efforts to organize the jungle of available protein structures have been underway. Although a number of discrepancies between different classification approaches for soluble proteins have been reported, the classification of membrane proteins has so far not been comparatively studied because of the limited amount of available structural data. Here, we present an analysis of α‐helical membrane protein classification in the SCOP and CATH databases. In the current set of 63 α‐helical membrane protein chains having between 1 and 13 transmembrane helices, we observed a number of differently classified proteins both regarding their domain and fold assignment. The majority of all discrepancies affect single transmembrane helix, two helix hairpin, and four helix bundle domains, while domains with more than five helices are mostly classified consistently between SCOP and CATH. It thus appears that the structural constraints imposed by the lipid bilayer complicate the classification of membrane proteins with only few membrane‐spanning regions. This problem seems to be specific for membrane proteins as soluble four helix bundles, not restrained by the membrane, are more consistently classified by SCOP and CATH. Our findings indicate that the structural space of small membrane helix bundles is highly continuous such that even minor differences in individual classification procedures may lead to a significantly different classification. Membrane proteins with few helices and limited structural diversity only seem to be reasonably classifiable if the definition of a fold is adapted to include more fine‐grained structural features such as helix–helix interactions and reentrant regions. Proteins 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.