Premium
S tructure‐based classification of FAD binding sites: A comparative study of structural alignment tools
Author(s) -
Garma Leonardo D.,
Medina Milagros,
Juffer André H.
Publication year - 2016
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.25158
Subject(s) - upgma , flavin adenine dinucleotide , cluster analysis , similarity (geometry) , consistency (knowledge bases) , structural similarity , set (abstract data type) , computational biology , structural alignment , pattern recognition (psychology) , computer science , sequence alignment , chemistry , biological system , biology , artificial intelligence , cofactor , biochemistry , peptide sequence , image (mathematics) , gene , enzyme , genotype , programming language
A total of six different structural alignment tools (TM‐Align, TriangleMatch, CLICK, ProBis, SiteEngine and GA‐SI) were assessed for their ability to perform two particular tasks: (i) discriminating FAD (flavin adenine dinucleotide) from non‐FAD binding sites, and (ii) performing an all‐to‐all comparison on a set of 883 FAD binding sites for the purpose of classifying them. For the first task, the consistency of each alignment method was evaluated, showing that every method is able to distinguish FAD and non‐FAD binding sites with a high Matthews correlation coefficient. Additionally, GA‐SI was found to provide alignments different from those of the other approaches. The results obtained for the second task revealed more significant differences among alignment methods, as reflected in the poor correlation of their results and highlighted clearly by the independent evaluation of the structural superimpositions generated by each method. The classification itself was performed using the combined results of all methods, using the best result found for each comparison of binding sites. A number of different clustering methods (Single‐linkage, UPGMA, Complete‐linkage, SPICKER and k‐Means clustering) were also used. The groups of similar binding sites (proteins) or clusters generated by the best performing method were further analyzed in terms of local sequence identity, local structural similarity and conservation of analogous contacts with the FAD ligands. Each of the clusters was characterized by a unique set of structural features or patterns, demonstrating that the groups generated truly reflect the structural diversity of FAD binding sites. Proteins 2016; 84:1728–1747. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.