Structural Proteomics: Large‐scale Studies

Martin Norin, Biovitrum AB, Stockholm, Sweden
Michael Sundström, Biovitrum AB, Stockholm, Sweden

Published online: September 2006

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0006220

Structural proteomics or structural genomics is a common term for systematic efforts to functionally annotate protein molecular structures of whole or selected parts of genomes and/or proteomes.

Keywords: structural genomics; high throughput; protein; X-ray; nuclear magnetic resonance methods; crystallography

Figure 1. Experimental flow in structural proteomics, the current bottlenecks and important technology developments.
close
 References
    Bailey-Kellog C, Widge A, Kelley JJ, et al. (2000) The NOESY Jigsaw: automated protein secondary structure and main-chain assignment from sparse, unassigned data. Journal of Computational Biology 7: 537–558.
    Christendat D, Yee A, Dharamsi A, et al. (2000) Structural proteomics of an archaeon. Nature Structural Biology 7: 903–909.
    Dauter Z, Li M and Wlodawer A (2001) Practical experience with the use of halides for phasing macromolecular structures: a powerful tool for structural genomics. Acta Crystallographica D 57: 239–249.
    Fetrow J, Siew N and Skolnick J (1999) Structure-based functional motif identifies a potential disulphide oxidoreductase active site in the serine/threonine protein phosphatase-1 subfamily. FASEB Journal 13: 1866–1874.
    Hofmann K, Bucher P, Falquet L and Bairoch A (1999) The PROSITE database, its status in 1999. Nucleic Acids Research 27: 215–219.
    Kasuya A and Thornton J (1999) Three-dimensional structure analysis of PROSITE patterns. Journal of Molecular Biology 286: 1673–1691.
    Muchmore SW, Olson J, Jones R, et al. (2000) Automated crystal mounting and data collection for protein crystallography. Structure 8: 243–246.
    Rice LM, Earnest TN and Brunger AT (2000) Single-wavelength anomalous diffraction phasing revisited. Acta Crystallography D 56: 1413–1420.
    Sánchez R, Pieper U, Melo F, et al. (2000) Protein structure modeling for structural genomics. Nature Structural Biology 7(supplement): 986–990.
    Sowa ME, He W, Slep KC, et al. (2001) Prediction and confirmation of a site critical for effector regulation of RGS domain activity. Nature Structural Biology 8: 234–237.
    Todd A, Orengo CA and Thornton JM (2001) Evolution of function in protein superfamilies, from a structural perspective. Journal of Molecular Biology 307: 1113–1143.
    Vitkup D, Melamud E, Moult J and Sander C (2001) Completeness in structural genomics. Nature Structural Biology 8: 559–566.
    Wilson CA, Kreychman J and Gerstein M (2000) Assessing annotation transfer for genomics: quantifying the relations between protein sequence, structure and function through traditional and probabilistic scores. Journal of Molecular Biology 297: 233–249.
    Zarembinski TI, Hung LW, Mueller-Dieckmann HJ, et al. (1998) Structure-based assignment of the biochemical function of a hypothetical protein: a test case of structural genomics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: 95: 15189–15193.
    Zhou P, Lugovskoy AA and Wagner G, et al. (2001) A solubility-enhancement tag (SET) for NMR studies of poorly behaving proteins. Journal of Biomolecular Nuclear Magnetic Resonance 20: 11–14.
 Further Reading
    Baker D and Sali A (2001) Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science 7: 93–96.
    Nature Structural Biology (2000) Structural genomics supplement. Nature Structural Biology 7: 927–994. [whole issue].
    Norin M and Sundström M (2002) Structural proteomics: developments in structure-to-function predictions. Trends in Biotechnology 20: 79–84.
    Stevens RC, Yokoyama S and Wilson IA (2001) Global efforts in structural genomics. Science 7: 89–92.
    Yee A, Chang X, Pineda-Lucena A, et al. (2002) An NMR approach to structural proteomics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99: 1825–1830.
 Web Links
    ePath CATH – Protein Structure Classification. CATH is a novel hierarchical classification of protein domain structures, which clusters proteins at four major levels: Class (C), http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/cath_new/cath_info.html#C_Level
    ePath Architecture (A) http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/cath_new/cath_info.html#A_Level
    ePath Topology (T), http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/cath_new/cath_info.html#T_Level
    ePath Homologous superfamily (H) http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/cath_new/cath_info.html#H_Level
    ePath DALI. The Dali server is a network service for comparing protein structures in 3D http://www2.ebi.ac.uk/dali/
    ePath The Protein Databank (PDB). A worldwide repository for the processing and distribution of 3-D biological macromolecular structure data http://www.rcsb.org/

Related Sub-Topics:

Basic Cell Biology, Protein, RNA and DNA | Techniques in Cell Biology | Protein Structure | X-Ray Crystallography | Nuclear Magnetic Resonance | Bioinformatics | Posttranslational Modification | Computational Molecular Biology
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Structural Proteomics: Large‐scale Studies
 
How to Cite close
Norin, Martin, and Sundström, Michael(Sep 2006) Structural Proteomics: Large‐scale Studies. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0006220]