Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-14 (14)

Clipboard (0)

Select a Filter Below

Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Most partial domains in proteins are alignment and annotation artifacts 
Genome Biology  2015;16(1):99.
Protein domains are commonly used to assess the functional roles and evolutionary relationships of proteins and protein families. Here, we use the Pfam protein family database to examine a set of candidate partial domains. Pfam protein domains are often thought of as evolutionarily indivisible, structurally compact, units from which larger functional proteins are assembled; however, almost 4% of Pfam27 PfamA domains are shorter than 50% of their family model length, suggesting that more than half of the domain is missing at those locations. To better understand the structural nature of partial domains in proteins, we examined 30,961 partial domain regions from 136 domain families contained in a representative subset of PfamA domains (RefProtDom2 or RPD2).
We characterized three types of apparent partial domains: split domains, bounded partials, and unbounded partials. We find that bounded partial domains are over-represented in eukaryotes and in lower quality protein predictions, suggesting that they often result from inaccurate genome assemblies or gene models. We also find that a large percentage of unbounded partial domains produce long alignments, which suggests that their annotation as a partial is an alignment artifact; yet some can be found as partials in other sequence contexts.
Partial domains are largely the result of alignment and annotation artifacts and should be viewed with caution. The presence of partial domain annotations in proteins should raise the concern that the prediction of the protein’s gene may be incomplete. In general, protein domains can be considered the structural building blocks of proteins.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0656-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
PMCID: PMC4443539  PMID: 25976240
2.  Selecting the Right Similarity-Scoring Matrix 
Protein sequence similarity searching programs like BLASTP, SSEARCH (UNIT 3.10), and FASTA use scoring matrices that are designed to identify distant evolutionary relationships (BLOSUM62 for BLAST, BLOSUM50 for SEARCH and FASTA). Different similarity scoring matrices are most effective at different evolutionary distances. “Deep” scoring matrices like BLOSUM62 and BLOSUM50 target alignments with 20 – 30% identity, while “shallow” scoring matrices (e.g. VTML10 – VTML80), target alignments that share 90 – 50% identity, reflecting much less evolutionary change. While “deep” matrices provide very sensitive similarity searches, they also require longer sequence alignments and can sometimes produce alignment overextension into non-homologous regions. Shallower scoring matrices are more effective when searching for short protein domains, or when the goal is to limit the scope of the search to sequences that are likely to be orthologous between recently diverged organisms. Likewise, in DNA searches, the match and mismatch parameters set evolutionary look-back times and domain boundaries. In this unit, we will discuss the theoretical foundations that drive practical choices of protein and DNA similarity scoring matrices and gap penalties. Deep scoring matrices (BLOSUM62 and BLOSUM50) should be used for sensitive searches with full-length protein sequences, but short domains or restricted evolutionary look-back require shallower scoring matrices.
PMCID: PMC3848038  PMID: 24509512
similarity scoring matrices; PAM matrices; BLOSUM matrices; sequence alignment
3.  An Introduction to Sequence Similarity (“Homology”) Searching 
Sequence similarity searching, typically with BLAST (units 3.3, 3.4), is the most widely used, and most reliable, strategy for characterizing newly determined sequences. Sequence similarity searches can identify ”homologous” proteins or genes by detecting excess similarity – statistically significant similarity that reflects common ancestry. This unit provides an overview of the inference of homology from significant similarity, and introduces other units in this chapter that provide more details on effective strategies for identifying homologs.
PMCID: PMC3820096  PMID: 23749753
sequence similarity; homology; orthlogy; paralogy; sequence alignment; multiple alignment; sequence evolution; Bioinformatics; Bioinformatics Fundamentals; Finding Similarities and Inferring Homologies
4.  The Catalytic Site Atlas 2.0: cataloging catalytic sites and residues identified in enzymes 
Nucleic Acids Research  2013;42(Database issue):D485-D489.
Understanding which are the catalytic residues in an enzyme and what function they perform is crucial to many biology studies, particularly those leading to new therapeutics and enzyme design. The original version of the Catalytic Site Atlas (CSA) ( published in 2004, which catalogs the residues involved in enzyme catalysis in experimentally determined protein structures, had only 177 curated entries and employed a simplistic approach to expanding these annotations to homologous enzyme structures. Here we present a new version of the CSA (CSA 2.0), which greatly expands the number of both curated (968) and automatically annotated catalytic sites in enzyme structures, utilizing a new method for annotation transfer. The curated entries are used, along with the variation in residue type from the sequence comparison, to generate 3D templates of the catalytic sites, which in turn can be used to find catalytic sites in new structures. To ease the transfer of CSA annotations to other resources a new ontology has been developed: the Enzyme Mechanism Ontology, which has permitted the transfer of annotations to Mechanism, Annotation and Classification in Enzymes (MACiE) and UniProt Knowledge Base (UniProtKB) resources. The CSA database schema has been re-designed and both the CSA data and search capabilities are presented in a new modern web interface.
PMCID: PMC3964973  PMID: 24319146
5.  Adjusting scoring matrices to correct overextended alignments 
Bioinformatics  2013;29(23):3007-3013.
Motivation: Sequence similarity searches performed with BLAST, SSEARCH and FASTA achieve high sensitivity by using scoring matrices (e.g. BLOSUM62) that target low identity (<33%) alignments. Although such scoring matrices can effectively identify distant homologs, they can also produce local alignments that extend beyond the homologous regions.
Results: We measured local alignment start/stop boundary accuracy using a set of queries where the correct alignment boundaries were known, and found that 7% of BLASTP and 8% of SSEARCH alignment boundaries were overextended. Overextended alignments include non-homologous sequences; they occur most frequently between sequences that are more closely related (>33% identity). Adjusting the scoring matrix to reflect the identity of the homologous sequence can correct higher identity overextended alignment boundaries. In addition, the scoring matrix that produced a correct alignment could be reliably predicted based on the sequence identity seen in the original BLOSUM62 alignment. Realigning with the predicted scoring matrix corrected 37% of all overextended alignments, resulting in more correct alignments than using BLOSUM62 alone.
Availability: RefProtDom2 (RPD2) sequences and the FASTA software are available from
PMCID: PMC3834790  PMID: 23995390
6.  The limits of protein sequence comparison? 
Modern sequence alignment algorithms are used routinely to identify homologous proteins, proteins that share a common ancestor. Homologous proteins always share similar structures and often have similar functions. Over the past 20 years, sequence comparison has become both more sensitive, largely because of profile-based methods, and more reliable, because of more accurate statistical estimates. As sequence and structure databases become larger, and comparison methods become more powerful, reliable statistical estimates will become even more important for distinguishing similarities that are due to homology from those that are due to analogy (convergence). The newest sequence alignment methods are more sensitive than older methods, but more accurate statistical estimates are needed for their full power to be realized.
PMCID: PMC2845305  PMID: 15919194
7.  PSI-Search: iterative HOE-reduced profile SSEARCH searching 
Bioinformatics  2012;28(12):1650-1651.
Summary: Iterative similarity searches with PSI-BLAST position-specific score matrices (PSSMs) find many more homologs than single searches, but PSSMs can be contaminated when homologous alignments are extended into unrelated protein domains—homologous over-extension (HOE). PSI-Search combines an optimal Smith–Waterman local alignment sequence search, using SSEARCH, with the PSI-BLAST profile construction strategy. An optional sequence boundary-masking procedure, which prevents alignments from being extended after they are initially included, can reduce HOE errors in the PSSM profile. Preventing HOE improves selectivity for both PSI-BLAST and PSI-Search, but PSI-Search has ~4-fold better selectivity than PSI-BLAST and similar sensitivity at 50% and 60% family coverage. PSI-Search is also produces 2- for 4-fold fewer false-positives than JackHMMER, but is ~5% less sensitive.
Availability and implementation: PSI-Search is available from the authors as a standalone implementation written in Perl for Linux-compatible platforms. It is also available through a web interface ( and SOAP and REST Web Services (
PMCID: PMC3371869  PMID: 22539666
8.  MACiE: exploring the diversity of biochemical reactions 
Nucleic Acids Research  2011;40(Database issue):D783-D789.
MACiE (which stands for Mechanism, Annotation and Classification in Enzymes) is a database of enzyme reaction mechanisms, and can be accessed from This article presents the release of Version 3 of MACiE, which not only extends the dataset to 335 entries, covering 182 of the EC sub-subclasses with a crystal structure available (∼90%), but also incorporates greater chemical and structural detail. This version of MACiE represents a shift in emphasis for new entries, from non-homologous representatives covering EC reaction space to enzymes with mechanisms of interest to our users and collaborators with a view to exploring the chemical diversity of life. We present new tools for exploring the data in MACiE and comparing entries as well as new analyses of the data and new searches, many of which can now be accessed via dedicated Perl scripts.
PMCID: PMC3244993  PMID: 22058127
9.  Globally, unrelated protein sequences appear random 
Bioinformatics  2009;26(3):310-318.
Motivation: To test whether protein folding constraints and secondary structure sequence preferences significantly reduce the space of amino acid words in proteins, we compared the frequencies of four- and five-amino acid word clumps (independent words) in proteins to the frequencies predicted by four random sequence models.
Results: While the human proteome has many overrepresented word clumps, these words come from large protein families with biased compositions (e.g. Zn-fingers). In contrast, in a non-redundant sample of Pfam-AB, only 1% of four-amino acid word clumps (4.7% of 5mer words) are 2-fold overrepresented compared with our simplest random model [MC(0)], and 0.1% (4mers) to 0.5% (5mers) are 2-fold overrepresented compared with a window-shuffled random model. Using a false discovery rate q-value analysis, the number of exceptional four- or five-letter words in real proteins is similar to the number found when comparing words from one random model to another. Consensus overrepresented words are not enriched in conserved regions of proteins, but four-letter words are enriched 1.18- to 1.56-fold in α-helical secondary structures (but not β-strands). Five-residue consensus exceptional words are enriched for α-helix 1.43- to 1.61-fold. Protein word preferences in regular secondary structure do not appear to significantly restrict the use of sequence words in unrelated proteins, although the consensus exceptional words have a secondary structure bias for α-helix. Globally, words in protein sequences appear to be under very few constraints; for the most part, they appear to be random.
Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
PMCID: PMC2852211  PMID: 19948773
10.  RefProtDom: a protein database with improved domain boundaries and homology relationships 
Bioinformatics  2010;26(18):2361-2362.
Summary: RefProtDom provides a set of divergent query domains, originally selected from Pfam, and full-length proteins containing their homologous domains, with diverse architectures, for evaluating pair-wise and iterative sequence similarity searches. Pfam homology and domain boundary annotations in the target library were supplemented using local and semi-global searches, PSI-BLAST searches, and SCOP and CATH classifications.
Availability: RefProtDom is available from
PMCID: PMC2935417  PMID: 20693322
11.  Improving pairwise sequence alignment accuracy using near-optimal protein sequence alignments 
BMC Bioinformatics  2010;11:146.
While the pairwise alignments produced by sequence similarity searches are a powerful tool for identifying homologous proteins - proteins that share a common ancestor and a similar structure; pairwise sequence alignments often fail to represent accurately the structural alignments inferred from three-dimensional coordinates. Since sequence alignment algorithms produce optimal alignments, the best structural alignments must reflect suboptimal sequence alignment scores. Thus, we have examined a range of suboptimal sequence alignments and a range of scoring parameters to understand better which sequence alignments are likely to be more structurally accurate.
We compared near-optimal protein sequence alignments produced by the Zuker algorithm and a set of probabilistic alignments produced by the probA program with structural alignments produced by four different structure alignment algorithms. There is significant overlap between the solution spaces of structural alignments and both the near-optimal sequence alignments produced by commonly used scoring parameters for sequences that share significant sequence similarity (E-values < 10-5) and the ensemble of probA alignments. We constructed a logistic regression model incorporating three input variables derived from sets of near-optimal alignments: robustness, edge frequency, and maximum bits-per-position. A ROC analysis shows that this model more accurately classifies amino acid pairs (edges in the alignment path graph) according to the likelihood of appearance in structural alignments than the robustness score alone. We investigated various trimming protocols for removing incorrect edges from the optimal sequence alignment; the most effective protocol is to remove matches from the semi-global optimal alignment that are outside the boundaries of the local alignment, although trimming according to the model-generated probabilities achieves a similar level of improvement. The model can also be used to generate novel alignments by using the probabilities in lieu of a scoring matrix. These alignments are typically better than the optimal sequence alignment, and include novel correct structural edges. We find that the probA alignments sample a larger variety of alignments than the Zuker set, which more frequently results in alignments that are closer to the structural alignments, but that using the probA alignments as input to the regression model does not increase performance.
The pool of suboptimal pairwise protein sequence alignments substantially overlaps structure-based alignments for pairs with statistically significant similarity, and a regression model based on information contained in this alignment pool improves the accuracy of pairwise alignments with respect to structure-based alignments.
PMCID: PMC2850363  PMID: 20307279
12.  Visualization of near-optimal sequence alignments 
Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)  2004;20(6):953-958.
Mathematically optimal alignments do not always properly align active site residues or well-recognized structural elements. Most near-optimal sequence alignment algorithms display alternative alignment paths, rather than the conventional residue-by-residue pairwise alignment. Typically, these methods do not provide mechanisms for finding effectively the most biologically meaningful alignment in the potentially large set of options.
We have developed Web-based software that displays near optimal or alternative alignments of two protein or DNA sequences as a continuous moving picture. A WWW interface to a C++ program generates near optimal alignments, which are sent to a Java Applet, which displays them in a series of alignment frames. The Applet aligns residues so that consistently aligned regions remain at a fixed position on the display, while variable regions move. The display can be stopped to examine alignment details.
Available at noptalign. For source code contact the authors at
PMCID: PMC2836811  PMID: 14751975
13.  Homologous over-extension: a challenge for iterative similarity searches 
Nucleic Acids Research  2010;38(7):2177-2189.
We have characterized a novel type of PSI-BLAST error, homologous over-extension (HOE), using embedded PFAM domain queries on searches against a reference library containing Pfam-annotated UniProt sequences and random synthetic sequences. PSI-BLAST makes two types of errors: alignments to non-homologous regions and HOE alignments that begin in a homologous region, but extend beyond the homology into neighboring sequence regions. When the neighboring sequence region contains a non-homologous domain, PSI-BLAST can incorporate the unrelated sequence into its position specific scoring matrix, which then finds non-homologous proteins with significant expectation values. HOE accounts for the largest fraction of the initial false positive (FP) errors, and the largest fraction of FPs at iteration 5. In searches against complete protein sequences, 5–9% of alignments at iteration 5 are non-homologous. HOE frequently begins in a partial protein domain; when partial domains are removed from the library, HOE errors decrease from 16 to 3% of weighted coverage (hard queries; 35–5% for sampled queries) and no-error searches increase from 2 to 58% weighed coverage (hard; 16–78% sampled). When HOE is reduced by not extending previously found sequences, PSI-BLAST specificity improves 4–8-fold, with little loss in sensitivity.
PMCID: PMC2853128  PMID: 20064877
14.  CRP: Cleavage of Radiolabeled Phosphoproteins 
Nucleic Acids Research  2003;31(13):3859-3861.
The CRP (Cleavage of Radiolabeled Phosphoproteins) program guides the design and interpretation of experiments to identify protein phosphorylation sites by Edman sequencing of unseparated peptides. Traditionally, phosphorylation sites are determined by cleaving the phosphoprotein and separating the peptides for Edman 32P-phosphate release sequencing. CRP analysis of a phosphoprotein's sequence accelerates this process by omitting the separation step: given a protein sequence of interest, the CRP program performs an in silico proteolytic cleavage of the sequence and reports the predicted Edman cycles in which radioactivity would be observed if a given serine, threonine or tyrosine were phosphorylated. Experimentally observed cycles containing 32P can be compared with CRP predictions to confirm candidate sites and/or explore the ability of additional cleavage experiments to resolve remaining ambiguities. To reduce ambiguity, the phosphorylated residue (P-Tyr, P-Ser or P-Thr) can be determined experimentally, and CRP will ignore sites with alternative residues. CRP also provides simple predictions of likely phosphorylation sites using known kinase recognition motifs. The CRP interface is available at
PMCID: PMC168920  PMID: 12824437

Results 1-14 (14)