The success of the whole genome sequencing projects brought considerable credence to the belief that high-throughput approaches, rather than traditional hypothesis-driven research, would be essential to structurally and functionally annotate the rapid growth in available sequence data within a reasonable time frame. Such observations supported the emerging field of structural genomics, which is now faced with the task of providing a library of protein structures that represent the biological diversity of the protein universe. To run efficiently, structural genomics projects aim to define a set of targets that maximize the potential of each structure discovery whether it represents a novel structure, novel function, or missing evolutionary link. However, not all protein sequences make suitable structural genomics targets: It takes considerably more effort to determine the structure of a protein than the sequence of its gene because of the increased complexity of the methods involved and also because the behavior of targeted proteins can be extremely variable at the different stages in the structural genomics “pipeline.” Therefore, structural genomics target selection must identify and prioritize the most suitable candidate proteins for structure determination, avoiding “problematic” proteins while also ensuring the ultimate goals of the project are followed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bourne, P. E., Westbrook, J., and Berman, H. M. (2004) The Protein Data Bank and lessons in data management. Brief. Bioinform. 5, 23–30.
Airlie Agreement (2001) http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/meetings/airlie.html
Baker D., and Sali A. (2001) Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science 294, 93–96.
Brenner, S. E., and Levitt, M. (2000) Expectations from structural genomics. Protein Sci. 9, 197–200.
Chandonia, J. M., Earnest, T. N., and Brenner, S. E. (2004) Structural genomics and structural biology: compare and contrast. Genome Biol. 5, 343.
Todd, A. E., Marsden, R. L., Thornton, J. M., and Orengo, C. A. (2005) Progress of structural genomics initiatives: an analysis of solved target structures. J. Mol. Biol. 348, 1235–1260.
Bray, J. E., Marsden, R. L., Rison, S. C., Savchenko, A., Edwards, A. M., Thornton, J. M., and Orengo, C. A. (2004) A practical and robust sequence search strategy for structural genomics target selection. Bioinformatics 20, 2288–2295.
Marsden, B. D., Sundstrom, M., and Knapp, S. (2006) High-throughput structural characterization of therapeutic protein targets. Expert Opin. Drug Disc. 1, 123–136.
Bravo, J., and Aloy, P. (2006) Target selection for complex structural genomics. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 16, 385–392.
Murzin, A. G., Brenner, S. E., Hubbard, T., and Chothia, C. (2000) SCOP: a structural classification of proteins for the investigation of sequences and structures. J. Mol. Biol. 247, 536–540.
Orengo, C. A., Mitchie, A. D., Jones, S., Jones, D. T., Swindells, M. B., and Thornton, J. M. (1997) CATH—a hierarchical classification of protein domain structures. Structure 5, 1093–1108.
Grant, A., Lee, D., and Orengo, C. (2004) Progress towards mapping the universe of protein folds. Genome Biol. 5, 107.
Harrison, A., Pearl, F., Mott, R., Thornton, J., and Orengo, C. (2002) Quantifying the similarities within fold space. J. Mol. Biol. 323, 909–926.
Orengo, C. A., Jones, D. T., and Thornton, J. M. (1994) Protein superfamilies and domain superfolds. Nature 372, 631–634.
Todd, A. E., Orengo, C. A., and Thornton, J. M. (2002) Sequence and structural differences between enzyme and nonenzyme homologs. Structure 10, 1435–1451.
Altschul, S. F., Madden, T. L., Schaffer, A. A., Zhang, J., Zhang, Z., Miller, W., and Lipman, D. J. (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402.
Eddy, S. R. (1996) Hidden Markov models. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 6, 361–365.
Finn, R. D., Mistry, J., Schuster-Bockler, B., Griffiths-Jones, S., Hollich, V., Lassmann, T., Moxon, S., Marshall, M., Khanna, A., Durbin, R., Eddy, S. R., Sonnhammer, E. L., and Bateman, A. (2006) Pfam: clans, web tools and services. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D247–251.
Letunic, I., Copley, R. R., Pils, B., Pinkert, S., Schultz, J., and Bork, P. (2006) SMART 5: domains in the context of genomes and networks. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D257–260.
tigr fam protein families: http://www.tigr.org/TIGRFAMs
Friedberg, I., Jaroszewski, L., Ye, Y., and Godzik, A. (2004) The interplay of fold recognition and experimental structure determination in structural genomics. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 14, 307–312.
Vitkup, D., Melamud, E., Moult, J., and Sander, C. (2001) Completeness in structural genomics. Nat. Struct. Biol. 8, 559–566.
Marsden, R. L., Lee, D., Maibaum, M., Yeats, C., and Orengo, C. A. (2006) Comprehensive genome analysis of 203 genomes provides structural genomics with new insights into protein family space. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 1066–1080.
Benson, D. A., Karsch-Mizrachi, I., Lipman, D. J., Ostell, J., and Wheeler, D. L. (2006) GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D16–20.
Savchenko, A., Yee, A., Khachatryan, A., Skarina, T., Evdokimova, E., Pavlova, M., Semesi, A., Northey, J., Beasley, S., Lan, N., Das, R., Gerstein, M., Arrowmith, C. H., and Edwards, A. M. (2003) Strategies for structural proteomics of prokaryotes: quantifying the advantages of studying orthologous proteins and of using both NMR and X-ray crystallography approaches. Proteins 50, 392–329.
Needleman, S., and Wunsch, C. (1970) A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 48, 443–453.
Smith, T., and Waterman, M. (1981) Identification of common molecular subsequences. J. Mol. Biol. 147, 195–197.
Sander, C., and Schneider, R. (1991) Database of homology-derived protein structures and the structural meaning of sequence alignment. Proteins 9, 56–68.
Doolittle, R. F. (1986) Of URFs and ORFs: a primer on how to analyze derived amino acid sequences. University Science Books, Mill Valley, California.
Rost, B. (1997). Protein structures sustain evolutionary drift. Folding and Design 2, S19–S24.
Smith, C. V., and Sacchettini, J. C. (2003) Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a model system for structural genomics. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 13, 658–664.
Riley, M. L., Schmidt, T., Wagner, C., Mewes, H. W., and Frishman, D. (2005) The PEDANT genome database in 2005. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D308–310.
Yeats, C., Maibaum, M., Marsden, R., Dibley, M., Lee, D., Addou, S., and Orengo, C. A. (2006) Gene3D: modeling protein structure, function and evolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D281–284.
The Gene Ontology Consortium. (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genet. 25, 25–29.
Kanehisa, M., and Goto, S. (2000) KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 27–30.
Bairoch, A. (2000) The ENZYME database in 2000. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 304–305.
Xie, L., and Bourne P. E. (2005) Functional coverage of the human genome by existing structures, structural genomics targets, and homology models. PLoS Comput. Biol. 1, e31.
Russell, R. B., and Eggleston, D. S. (2000) New roles for structure in biology and drug discovery. Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 928–930.
Goh, C. S., Lan, N., Douglas, S. M., Wu, B., Echols, N., Smith, A., Milburn, D., Montelione, G. T., Zhao, H., and Gerstein, M. (2004) Mining the structural genomics pipeline: identification of protein properties that affect high-throughput experimental analysis. J. Mol. Biol. 336, 115–130.
Gruber, M., Soding, J., and Lupas, A. N. (2006) Comparative analysis of coiled-coil prediction methods. J. Struct. Biol. 155, 140–145.
Wolf, E., Kim, P. S., and Berger, B. (1997) MultiCoil: a program for predicting two- and three-stranded coiled coils. Protein Sci. 6, 1179–1189.
Bryson, K., McGuffin, L. J., Marsden, R. L., Ward, J. J., Sodhi, J. S., and Jones, D. T. (2005) Protein structure prediction servers at University College London. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, W36–38.
Krogh, A., Larsson, B., von Heijne, G., and Sonnhammer, E. L. (2001) Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J. Mol. Biol. 305, 567–580.
Bigelow, H., and Rost, B. (2006) PROFtmb: a web server for predicting bacterial transmembrane beta barrel proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, W186–188.
Bendtsen, J. D., Nielsen, H., von Heijne, G., and Brunak, S. (2004) Improved prediction of signal peptides: SignalP 3.0. J. Mol. Biol. 340, 783–795.
Wootton, J. C., and Federhen, S. (1996) Analysis of compositionally biased regions in sequence databases. Methods Enzymol. 266, 554–571.
Promponas, V. J., Enright, A. J., Tsoka, S., Kreil, D. P., Leroy, C., Hamodrakas, S., Sander, C., and Ouzounis, C. A. (2000) CAST: an iterative algorithm for the complexity analysis of sequence tracts. Complexity analysis of sequence tracts. Bioinformatics 16, 915–922.
Linding, R., Jensen, L. J., Diella, F., Bork, P., Gibson, T. J., and Russell, R. B. (2003) Protein disorder prediction: implications for structural proteomics. Structure 11, 1453–1459.
Pantazatos, D., Kim, J. S., Klock, H. E., Stevens, R. C., Wilson, I. A., Lesely, S. A., and Woods, V. L. (2004) On the use of DXMS to produce more crystallizable proteins: structures of the T. maritima proteins TM0160 and TM1171. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 751–756.
Sarachu, M., and Colet, M. (2005) wEMBOSS: a web interface for EMBOSS. Bioinformatics 21, 540–541.
Gasteiger, E., Gattiker, A., Hoogland, C., Ivanyi, I., Appel, R. D., and Bairoch A. (2003) ExPASy: the proteomics server for in-depth protein knowledge and analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 3784–3788.
Rost, B., Yachdav, G., and Liu, J. (2003) The PredictProtein Server. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, W321–W326.
Canaves, J. M., Page, R., Wilson, I. A., and Stevens, R. C. (2004) Protein biophysical properties that correlate with crystallization success in Thermotoga maritima: maximum clustering strategy for structural genomics. J. Mol. Biol. 344, 977–991.
Zdobnov, E. M., and Apweiler, R. (2001) InterProScan—an integration platform for the signature-recognition methods in InterPro. Bioinformatics 17, 847–848.
Chen, L., Oughtred, R., Berman, H. M., and Westbrook, J. (2004) TargetDB: a target registration database for structural genomics projects. Bioinformatics 20, 2860–2862.
Task Force on Target Tracking (2001) http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/reports/airlie_tasks.html
Chandonia, J. M., and Brenner, S. E. (2006) The impact of structural genomics: expectations and outcomes. Science 311, 347–351.
Pellegrini, M., Haynor, D., and Johnson, J. M. (2004) Protein interaction networks. Expert Rev. Proteomics 1, 239–249.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Marsden, R.L., Orengo, C.A. (2008). Target Selection for Structural Genomics: An Overview. In: Kobe, B., Guss, M., Huber, T. (eds) Structural Proteomics. Methods in Molecular Biology™, vol 426. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-058-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-058-8_1
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-809-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-60327-058-8
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols