In:
Protein Science, Wiley, Vol. 12, No. 10 ( 2003-10), p. 2150-2160
Abstract:
We have determined consensus protein‐fold classifications on the basis of three classification methods, SCOP, CATH, and Dali. These classifications make use of different methods of defining and categorizing protein folds that lead to different views of protein‐fold space. Pairwise comparisons of domains on the basis of their fold classifications show that much of the disagreement between the classification systems is due to differing domain definitions rather than assigning the same domain to different folds. However, there are significant differences in the fold assignments between the three systems. These remaining differences can be explained primarily in terms of the breadth of the fold classifications. Many structures may be defined as having one fold in one system, whereas far fewer are defined as having the analogous fold in another system. By comparing these folds for a nonredundant set of proteins, the consensus method breaks up broad fold classifications and combines restrictive fold classifications into metafolds, creating, in effect, an averaged view of fold space. This averaged view requires that the structural similarities between proteins having the same metafold be recognized by multiple classification systems. Thus, the consensus map is useful for researchers looking for fold similarities that are relatively independent of the method used to compare proteins. The 30 most populated metafolds, representing the folds of about half of a nonredundant subset of the PDB, are presented here. The full list of metafolds is presented on the Web.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0961-8368
,
1469-896X
Language:
English
Publisher:
Wiley
Publication Date:
2003
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2000025-X
SSG:
12
Permalink
