| Title: | PEP: Predictions for Entire Proteomes |
| Author: | Phil Carter, Jinfeng Liu & Burkhard Rost |
| Quote: | Nucl Acids Res(2003) 31:410-413 |
PEP: Predictions for Entire Proteomes
| 1 | CUBIC, Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Columbia University, 650 West 168th Street BB217, New York, NY 10032, USA |
| 2 | North East Structural Genomics Consortium (NESG), Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Columbia University, 650 West 168th Street BB217, New York, NY 10032, USA |
| 3 | Dept. of Pharmacology, Columbia Univ., 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA |
| 4 | Columbia University Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (C2B2), Russ Berrie Pavilion, 1150 St. Nicholas Avenue, New York, NY 10032, USA |
| * | Corresponding authors: email = carter@cubic.bioc.columbia.edu , rost@columbia.edu URL http://cubic.bioc.columbia.edu/ Tel: +1-212-305-3773, fax: +1-212-305-7932 |
This article is published in (Nucleic Acids Research, issue, 2002 and pages) © copyright Oxford University Press (2002). OUP is the only authorised source. All copying of this article including placing on another website requires the written permission of the copyright owner.
PEP is a database of Predictions for Entire Proteomes. The database contains summaries of analyses of protein sequences from a range of organisms representing all three major kingdoms of life: eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea. All proteins publicly available for organisms were aligned against SWISS-PROT, TrEMBL and PDB. Additionally the following annotations are provided: secondary structure, transmembrane helices, coiled coils, regions of low complexity, signal peptides, PROSITE motifs, nuclear localization signals and classes of cellular function. Proteins that contain long regions without regular secondary structure are also identified. We have produced a related database of structural domain-like fragments derived from PEP, and clusters based on homology between all fragments. The PEP database, fragments and clusters are distributed freely as a set of flat files, and have been integrated into SRS. The PEP group of databases can be accessed from: http://cubic.bioc.columbia.edu/pep.
Key words: protein sequence analysis, analysing entire proteomes, secondary structure, transmembrane helices, functional class
Large-scale genome sequencing has provided us with the building blocks of living organisms. However, to obtain new insights into physiological and biochemical processes, it is essential to analyse and catalogue the structural and functional features of each individual protein in the genome. We refer to all these proteins as the proteome of an organism. With bioinformatics tools becoming more and more accurate, it is now possible to systematically generate various reliable structural and functional annotations for entire proteomes and make the information easily accessible in different ways. Such predictions for entire proteomes suggest conclusions in context of comparative genomics [1, 2, 3] and provide crucial information in context of structural genomics [4] .
PEP has been created as a generic bioinformatics resource. The objective of predicting features for all constituent peptides of proteomes has been to allow users to data mine proteomes globally, or to retrieve sequences of particular interest and to review predictions on individual sequences. PEP entries constitute the sequences of proteins as given by the Open Reading Frames (ORFs) from sequencing projects. We have dissected the ORFs into putative structural domains or fragments. The fragments in turn have been clustered based upon sequence similarity. The North East Structural Genomics (NESG) consortium [5] is using the fragments and clusters for target selection purposes (http://www.nesg.org).
The PEP database is a summary of analyses for publicly available proteomes [1] . All PEP entries were aligned against proteins taken from SWISS-PROT [6] , TrEMBL [6] , and PDB [7] . ORFs were taken from FlyBase [8] , WormBase [9] and databases at the NCBI. Protein sequences from each proteome were: (I) aligned against the SWISS-PROT, TrEMBL and PDB using pairwise BLAST [10] , PSI-BLAST [11] and the dynamic programming method MaxHom [12] ; (II) assigned secondary structure and other sequence based predictions, and (III) assigned predicted cellular function according to EUCLID [13] . The structural and functional features we analysed included:
· coiled-coil regions predicted by COILS [14]
· 3-state secondary structure predicted by PROFsec [15, 16]
· percentage relative solvent accessibility predicted by PROFacc [15, 16]
· transmembrane helices assigned by PHDhtm [15]
· low sequence complexity regions according to SEG [17]
· long stretches of non-regular secondary structure (NORS) [2]
· presence and location of signal peptide cleavage sites identified by SignalP [18]
· PROSITE motifs [19]
· nuclear localization signals [20, 21]
· cellular functional classes assigned by EUCLID [13]
An example of a PEP entry is shown in Fig. 1
The structural domain-like fragments have been analysed for the same features i.e. database homologies, sequence based features, and cellular function. The fragment results are available as a database named CHOP. These fragments have been clustered using PSI-BLAST with an “all versus all” sequence similarity comparison to find distinct protein families. The clusters are also available as a database ( Fig. 2 ).
Fig. 2. : Clustering a structural family. PEP contains clusters of proteins sharing a common structural region corresponding to putative structural domains. Given are the alignments of member sequences against the seed of the cluster produced by PSI-BLAST and results of a pairwise BLAST “all versus all” comparisons of all the proteins in the cluster.
Table 1 shows proteomes we have analysed to date. We will analyse more and add the results to PEP in the future. Currently we are using a 28 node (58 processor) Dell cluster to perform our predictions.
| Classification | Organism | Number of proteins analysed |
| Aradopsis thaliana | 25542 | |
| Caenorhabditis elegans | 20251 | |
| Eukaryotes | Drosophilamelanogaster | 14304 |
| Homo sapiens | 37271 | |
| Saccharomyces cerevisiae | 6356 | |
| Aquifex aeolicus | 1522 | |
| Borrelia burgdorferi | 850 | |
| Campylobacter jejuni | 1633 | |
| Chlamydia trachomatis | 894 | |
| Prokaryotes | Escherichia coli | 4281 |
| Helicobacter pylori | 1564 | |
| Mycoplasma genitalium | 470 | |
| Mycoplasma pneumoniae | 688 | |
| Neisseria meningitidis | 2065 | |
| Rickettsia conorii | 1374 | |
| Ureaplasma urealyticum | 611 | |
| Achaeoglobus fulgidus | 2407 | |
| Archaea | Aeropyrum pernix K1 | 2694 |
| Halobacterium sp. (strain NRC-1) | 2058 | |
| Pyrococcus horikoshii | 2064 | |
| Sulfolobus solfataricus | 2977 | |
| Virus | Human cytomegalovirus (strain AD169) | 202 |
The three databases (ORFs, fragments and clusters) are available as flat files, and have been integrated into SRS [22] . We distribute the full results of the analyses also, although they are quite large in size (gigabytes). The PEP databases can be accessed through the Columbia University Bioinformatics Center (CUBIC) web site: http://cubic.bioc.columbia.edu/pep
PEP can be searched on many fields (over 40), some examples of which are “Euclid assigned function”, “number of coiled coil regions”, “length of non-regular secondary structure regions”, “number of alpha-helices”, “number of transmembrane helices” and “length of signal peptide”. The proteomes can also be searched using a range of bioinformatics tools with their own sequences. The flat files can also be downloaded for local investigation.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dariusz Przybylski, Rajesh Nair and Kazimierz Wrzeszczynski (Columbia University) for providing preliminary information and programs. Thanks to the SRS team for their software. The work was supported by the grants 1-P50-GM62413-01 and RO1-GM63029-01 from the National Institute of Health (NIH). Last, not least, thanks to all those who deposit their experimental data in public databases, and to those who maintain these databases.
| 1. | Liu, J. & Rost,B. (2001). Comparing function and structure between entire proteomes. ProteinSci, 10, 1970-9.. |
| 2. | Liu, J., Tan, H.& Rost, B. (2002). Loopy proteins appear conserved in evolution. Journalof Molecular Biology, 322, 53-64. |
| 3. | Rost, B. (2002). Didevolution leap to create the protein universe? Current Opinion in StructuralBiology, 12,409-416. |
| 4. | Liu, J. & Rost,B. (2002). Target space for structural genomics revisited. Bioinformatics, 18, 922-933. |
| 5. | Montelione, G. T.(2001). Structural genomics: an approach to the protein folding problem. ProcNatl Acad Sci U S A, 98, 13488-9. |
| 6. | Bairoch, A. &Apweiler, R. (2000). The SWISS-PROT protein sequence database and itssupplement TrEMBL in 2000. Nucleic Acids Res,28, 45-8.. |
| 7. | Berman, H. M.,Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., Gilliland, G., Bhat, T. N. et al. (2000). The ProteinData Bank. Nucleic Acids Res, 28, 235-42.. |
| 8. | (2002). The FlyBasedatabase of the Drosophila genome projects and community literature. NucleicAcids Res, 30,106-8.. |
| 9. | Stein, L.,Sternberg, P., Durbin, R., Thierry-Mieg, J. & Spieth, J. (2001). WormBase:network access to the genome and biology of Caenorhabditis elegans. NucleicAcids Res, 29,82-6.. |
| 10. | Altschul, S. F.& Gish, W. (1996). Local alignment statistics. Methods in Enzymology, 266, 460-480. |
| 11. | Altschul, S. F.,Madden, T. L., Schaffer, A. A., Zhang, J., Zhang, Z. et al. (1997). GappedBLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. NucleicAcids Res, 25,3389-402.. |
| 12. | Sander, C. &Schneider, R. (1991). Database of homology-derived protein structures and thestructural meaning of sequence alignment. Proteins, 9, 56-68.. |
| 13. | Tamames, J.,Ouzounis, C., Casari, G., Sander, C. & Valencia, A. (1998). EUCLID:automatic classification of proteins in functional classes by their databaseannotations. Bioinformatics, 14, 542-3.. |
| 14. | Lupas, A. (1996).Prediction and analysis of coiled-coil structures. Methods Enzymol, 266, 513-25.. |
| 15. | Rost, B. (1996).PHD: predicting one-dimensional protein structure by profile-based neuralnetworks. Methods Enzymol, 266, 525-39.. |
| 16. | Rost, B. (2001).Protein secondary structure prediction continues to rise. Journal ofStructural Biology, 134, 204-218. |
| 17. | Wootton, J. C.& Federhen, S. (1996). Analysis of compositionally biased regions insequence databases. Methods Enzymol, 266, 554-71.. |
| 18. | Nielsen, H.,Engelbrecht, J., Brunak, S. & von Heijne, G. (1997). Identification ofprokaryotic and eukaryotic signal peptides and prediction of their cleavagesites. Protein Eng, 10, 1-6.. |
| 19. | Falquet, L., Pagni,M., Bucher, P., Hulo, N., Sigrist, C. J. et al. (2002). The PROSITE database,its status in 2002. Nucleic Acids Res, 30, 235-8.. |
| 20. | Cokol, M., Nair, R.& Rost, B. (2000). Finding nuclear localisation signals. EMBO Reports, 1, 411-415. |
| 21. | Nair, R., Carter,P. & Rost, B. (2002). NLSdb: database of nuclear localization signals. NucleicAcids Research,accepted. |
| 22. | Etzold, T. &Argos, P. (1993). SRS--an indexing and retrieval tool for flat file datalibraries. Comput Appl Biosci, 9, 49-57.. |
| Contact: rost@columbia.edu | Version: Sep 18, 2002 |