Quaternary structure evaluation tool for protein assemblies

Abstract

Abstract. CC-BY 4.0 International license peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/224196 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Nov. 23, 2017; 2 The Protein Data Bank (PDB) is the single worldwide archive of experimentallydetermined three-dimensional (3D) structures of proteins and nucleic acids. As of January 2017, the PDB housed more than 125,000 structures and was growing by more than 11,000 structures annually. Since the 3D structure of a protein is vital to understand the mechanisms of biological processes, diseases, and drug design, correct oligomeric assembly information is of critical importance. For example, it makes a difference if the protein is normally a dimer and not a monomer or a trimer or a tetramer or a hexamer in nature. Unfortunately, the biologically relevant oligomeric form of a 3D structure is not directly obtainable by X-ray crystallography. Instead, this information may be provided by the PDB Depositor as metadata coming from additional experiments, be inferred by sequence-sequence comparisons with similar proteins of known oligomeric state, or predicted using software, such as PISA (Proteins, Interfaces, Structures and Assemblies) or EPPIC (Evolutionary Protein Protein Interface Classifier).Despite significant efforts by professional PDB Biocurators during data deposition, there remain a number of structures in the archive with incorrect quaternary structure descriptions (or annotations). Further investigation is, therefore, needed to evaluate the correctness of quaternary structure annotations. In this study, we aim to identify the most probable oligomeric states for proteins represented in the PDB. Our approach evaluated the performance of four independent prediction methods, including text mining of primary publications, inference from homologous protein structures, and two computational methods (PISA and EPPIC). Aggregating predictions to give consensus results outperformed all four of the independent prediction methods, yielding 86% correct, 9% incorrect, and 5% inconclusive predictions, when tested with a well-curated