DNA-binding proteins (DNABPs) are important for various cellular processes, such as transcriptional regulation, recombination, replication, repair, and DNA modification. So far various bioinformatics and machine learning techniques have been applied for identification of DNA-binding proteins from protein structure. Only few methods are available for the identification of DNA binding proteins from protein sequence. In this work, we report a random forest method, DNA-Prot, to identify DNA binding proteins from protein sequence. Training was performed on the dataset containing 146 DNA-binding proteins and 250 non DNA-binding proteins. The algorithm was tested on the dataset containing 92 DNA-binding proteins and 100 non DNA-binding proteins. We obtained 80.31% accuracy from training and 84.37% accuracy from testing. Benchmarking analysis on the independent of 823 DNA-binding proteins and 823 non DNA-binding proteins shows that our approach can distinguish DNA-binding proteins from non DNA-binding proteins with more than 80% accuracy. We also compared our method with DNAbinder method on test dataset and two independent datasets. Comparable performance was observed from both methods on test dataset. In the benchmark dataset containing 823 DNA-binding proteins and 823 non DNA-binding proteins, we obtained significantly better performance from DNA-Prot with 81.83% accuracy whereas DNAbinder achieved only 61.42% accuracy using amino acid composition and 63.5% using PSSM profile. Similarly, DNA-Prot achieved better performance rate from the benchmark dataset containing 88 DNA-binding proteins and 233 non DNA-binding proteins. This result shows DNA-Prot can be efficiently used to identify DNA binding proteins from sequence information. The dataset and standalone version of DNA-Prot software can be obtained from http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/EPNSugan/index_files/dnaprot.htm.
Protein function identification remains a significant problem. Solving this problem at the molecular functional level would allow mechanistic determinant identification—amino acids that distinguish details between functional families within a superfamily. Active site profiling was developed to identify mechanistic determinants. DASP and DASP2 were developed as tools to search sequence databases using active site profiling. Here, TuLIP (Two‐Level Iterative clustering Process) is introduced as an iterative, divisive clustering process that utilizes active site profiling to separate structurally characterized superfamily members into functionally relevant clusters. Underlying TuLIP is the observation that functionally relevant families (curated by Structure‐Function Linkage Database, SFLD) self‐identify in DASP2 searches; clusters containing multiple functional families do not. Each TuLIP iteration produces candidate clusters, each evaluated to determine if it self‐identifies using DASP2. If so, it is deemed a functionally relevant group. Divisive clustering continues until each structure is either a functionally relevant group member or a singlet. TuLIP is validated on enolase and glutathione transferase structures, superfamilies well‐curated by SFLD. Correlation is strong; small numbers of structures prevent statistically significant analysis. TuLIP‐identified enolase clusters are used in DASP2 GenBank searches to identify sequences sharing functional site features. Analysis shows a true positive rate of 96%, false negative rate of 4%, and maximum false positive rate of 4%. F‐measure and performance analysis on the enolase search results and comparison to GEMMA and SCI‐PHY demonstrate that TuLIP avoids the over‐division problem of these methods. Mechanistic determinants for enolase families are evaluated and shown to correlate well with literature results.
The development of accurate protein function annotation methods has emerged as a major unsolved biological problem. Protein similarity networks, one approach to function annotation via annotation transfer, group proteins into similarity-based clusters. An underlying assumption is that the edge metric used to identify such clusters correlates with functional information. In this contribution, this assumption is evaluated by observing topologies in similarity networks using three different edge metrics: sequence (BLAST), structure (TM-Align), and active site similarity (active site profiling, implemented in DASP). Network topologies for four well-studied protein superfamilies (enolase, peroxiredoxin (Prx), glutathione transferase (GST), and crotonase) were compared with curated functional hierarchies and structure. As expected, network topology differs, depending on edge metric; comparison of topologies provides valuable information on structure/function relationships. Subnetworks based on active site similarity correlate with known functional hierarchies at a single edge threshold more often than sequence- or structure-based networks. Sequence- and structure-based networks are useful for identifying sequence and domain similarities and differences; therefore, it is important to consider the clustering goal before deciding appropriate edge metric. Further, conserved active site residues identified in enolase and GST active site subnetworks correspond with published functionally important residues. Extension of this analysis yields predictions of functionally determinant residues for GST subgroups. These results support the hypothesis that active site similarity-based networks reveal clusters that share functional details and lay the foundation for capturing functionally relevant hierarchies using an approach that is both automatable and can deliver greater precision in function annotation than current similarity-based methods.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.