Biomedical subjects

Dariusz Przybylski

Publications and source records attributed to Dariusz Przybylski.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Improving fold recognition without folds.

The most reliable way to align two proteins of unknown structure is through sequence-profile and profile-profile alignment methods. If the structure for one of the two is known, fold recognition methods outperform purely sequence-based alignments. Here, we introduced a novel method that aligns generalised sequence and predicted structure profiles. Using predicted 1D structure (secondary structure and solvent accessibility) significantly improved over sequence-only methods, both in terms of correctly recognising pairs of proteins with different sequences and similar structures and in terms of correctly aligning the pairs. The scores obtained by our generalised scoring matrix followed an extreme value distribution; this yielded accurate estimates of the statistical significance of our alignments. We found that mistakes in 1D structure predictions correlated between proteins from different sequence-structure families. The impact of this surprising result was that our method succeeded in significantly out-performing sequence-only methods even without explicitly using structural information from any of the two. Since AGAPE also outperformed established methods that rely on 3D information, we made it available through. If we solved the problem of CPU-time required to apply AGAPE on millions of proteins, our results could also impact everyday database searches.

Databases, Protein↗

PubMed2004

Predicting transmembrane beta-barrels in proteomes.

Very few methods address the problem of predicting beta-barrel membrane proteins directly from sequence. One reason is that only very few high-resolution structures for transmembrane beta-barrel (TMB) proteins have been determined thus far. Here we introduced the design, statistics and results of a novel profile-based hidden Markov model for the prediction and discrimination of TMBs. The method carefully attempts to avoid over-fitting the sparse experimental data. While our model training and scoring procedures were very similar to a recently published work, the architecture and structure-based labelling were significantly different. In particular, we introduced a new definition of beta- hairpin motifs, explicit state modelling of transmembrane strands, and a log-odds whole-protein discrimination score. The resulting method reached an overall four-state (up-, down-strand, periplasmic-, outer-loop) accuracy as high as 86%. Furthermore, accurately discriminated TMB from non-TMB proteins (45% coverage at 100% accuracy). This high precision enabled the application to 72 entirely sequenced Gram-negative bacteria. We found over 164 previously uncharacterized TMB proteins at high confidence. Database searches did not implicate any of these proteins with membranes. We challenge that the vast majority of our 164 predictions will eventually be verified experimentally. All proteome predictions and the PROFtmb prediction method are available at http://www.rostlab.org/ services/PROFtmb/.

Markov Chains↗

PubMed2003

EVA: Evaluation of protein structure prediction servers.

EVA (http://cubic.bioc.columbia.edu/eva/) is a web server for evaluation of the accuracy of automated protein structure prediction methods. The evaluation is updated automatically each week, to cope with the large number of existing prediction servers and the constant changes in the prediction methods. EVA currently assesses servers for secondary structure prediction, contact prediction, comparative protein structure modelling and threading/fold recognition. Every day, sequences of newly available protein structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) are sent to the servers and their predictions are collected. The predictions are then compared to the experimental structures once a week; the results are published on the EVA web pages. Over time, EVA has accumulated prediction results for a large number of proteins, ranging from hundreds to thousands, depending on the prediction method. This large sample assures that methods are compared reliably. As a result, EVA provides useful information to developers as well as users of prediction methods.

Automation↗

PubMed2003

CAFASP3 in the spotlight of EVA.

We have analysed fold recognition, secondary structure and contact prediction servers from CAFASP3. This assessment was carried out in the framework of the fully automated, web-based evaluation server EVA. Detailed results are available at http://cubic.bioc.columbia.edu/eva/cafasp3/. We observed that the sequence-unique targets from CAFASP3/CASP5 were not fully representative for evaluating performance. For all three categories, we showed how careless ranking might be misleading. We compared methods from all categories to experts in secondary structure and contact prediction and homology modellers to fold recognisers. While the secondary structure experts clearly outperformed all others, the contact experts appeared to outperform only novel fold methods. Automatic evaluation servers are good at getting statistics right and at using these to discard misleading ranking schemes. We challenge that to let machines rule where they are best might be the best way for the community to enjoy the tremendous benefit of CASP as a unique opportunity for brainstorming.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2002

Alignments grow, secondary structure prediction improves.

Using information from sequence alignments significantly improves protein secondary structure prediction. Typically, more divergent profiles yield better predictions. Recently, various groups have shown that accuracy can be improved significantly by using PSI-BLAST profiles to develop new prediction methods. Here, we focused on the influences of various alignment strategies on two 8-year-old PHD methods. The following results stood out. (i) PHD using pairwise alignments predicts about 72% of all residues correctly in one of the three states: helix, strand, and other. Using larger databases and PSI-BLAST raised accuracy to 75%. (ii) More than 60% of the improvement originated from the growth of current sequence databases; about 20% resulted from detailed changes in the alignment procedure (substitution matrix, thresholds, and gap penalties). Another 20% of the improvement resulted from carefully using iterated PSI-BLAST searches. (iii) It is of interest that we failed to improve prediction accuracy further when attempting to refine the alignment by dynamic programming (MaxHom and ClustalW). (iv) Improvement through family growth appears to saturate at some point. However, most families have not reached this saturation. Hence, we anticipate that prediction accuracy will continue to rise with database growth.

Databases, Protein↗