Structural Bridges through Fold Space.

Several protein structure classification schemes exist that partition the protein universe into structural units called folds. Yet these schemes do not discuss how these units sit relative to each other in a global structure space. In this paper we construct networks that describe such global relati...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hannah Edwards, Charlotte M Deane
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015-09-01
Series:PLoS Computational Biology
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4570669?pdf=render
id doaj-e33b7daf37f24d679a7e097c070d0081
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e33b7daf37f24d679a7e097c070d00812020-11-24T21:12:26ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS Computational Biology1553-734X1553-73582015-09-01119e100446610.1371/journal.pcbi.1004466Structural Bridges through Fold Space.Hannah EdwardsCharlotte M DeaneSeveral protein structure classification schemes exist that partition the protein universe into structural units called folds. Yet these schemes do not discuss how these units sit relative to each other in a global structure space. In this paper we construct networks that describe such global relationships between folds in the form of structural bridges. We generate these networks using four different structural alignment methods across multiple score thresholds. The networks constructed using the different methods remain a similar distance apart regardless of the probability threshold defining a structural bridge. This suggests that at least some structural bridges are method specific and that any attempt to build a picture of structural space should not be reliant on a single structural superposition method. Despite these differences all representations agree on an organisation of fold space into five principal community structures: all-α, all-β sandwiches, all-β barrels, α/β and α + β. We project estimated fold ages onto the networks and find that not only are the pairings of unconnected folds associated with higher age differences than bridged folds, but this difference increases with the number of networks displaying an edge. We also examine different centrality measures for folds within the networks and how these relate to fold age. While these measures interpret the central core of fold space in varied ways they all identify the disposition of ancestral folds to fall within this core and that of the more recently evolved structures to provide the peripheral landscape. These findings suggest that evolutionary information is encoded along these structural bridges. Finally, we identify four highly central pivotal folds representing dominant topological features which act as key attractors within our landscapes.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4570669?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hannah Edwards
Charlotte M Deane
spellingShingle Hannah Edwards
Charlotte M Deane
Structural Bridges through Fold Space.
PLoS Computational Biology
author_facet Hannah Edwards
Charlotte M Deane
author_sort Hannah Edwards
title Structural Bridges through Fold Space.
title_short Structural Bridges through Fold Space.
title_full Structural Bridges through Fold Space.
title_fullStr Structural Bridges through Fold Space.
title_full_unstemmed Structural Bridges through Fold Space.
title_sort structural bridges through fold space.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS Computational Biology
issn 1553-734X
1553-7358
publishDate 2015-09-01
description Several protein structure classification schemes exist that partition the protein universe into structural units called folds. Yet these schemes do not discuss how these units sit relative to each other in a global structure space. In this paper we construct networks that describe such global relationships between folds in the form of structural bridges. We generate these networks using four different structural alignment methods across multiple score thresholds. The networks constructed using the different methods remain a similar distance apart regardless of the probability threshold defining a structural bridge. This suggests that at least some structural bridges are method specific and that any attempt to build a picture of structural space should not be reliant on a single structural superposition method. Despite these differences all representations agree on an organisation of fold space into five principal community structures: all-α, all-β sandwiches, all-β barrels, α/β and α + β. We project estimated fold ages onto the networks and find that not only are the pairings of unconnected folds associated with higher age differences than bridged folds, but this difference increases with the number of networks displaying an edge. We also examine different centrality measures for folds within the networks and how these relate to fold age. While these measures interpret the central core of fold space in varied ways they all identify the disposition of ancestral folds to fall within this core and that of the more recently evolved structures to provide the peripheral landscape. These findings suggest that evolutionary information is encoded along these structural bridges. Finally, we identify four highly central pivotal folds representing dominant topological features which act as key attractors within our landscapes.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4570669?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT hannahedwards structuralbridgesthroughfoldspace
AT charlottemdeane structuralbridgesthroughfoldspace
_version_ 1716750929100800000