Structure and function prediction of unknown wheat protein using LOMETS and I-TASSER

GEETIKA JETHRA; A K MISHRA; P S PANDEY; H CHANDRASEKHARAN

doi:10.56093/ijas.v82i10.24178

Authors

GEETIKA JETHRA Unit of Simulation and Informatics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
A K MISHRA Unit of Simulation and Informatics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
P S PANDEY Unit of Simulation and Informatics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
H CHANDRASEKHARAN Unit of Simulation and Informatics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v82i10.24178

Keywords:

I-TASSER, LOMETS, NCBI, Wheat

Abstract

Wheat is a vital dietary cereal crop often associated with valuable health effects. A study was carried out to investigate the in-silico analysis of 2D and 3D structure prediction of protein with an unidentified structure and function in Triticum aestivum. Primary structure prediction and physicochemical characterization were performed by computing theoretical isoelectric point (pI), molecular weight, and total number of positive and negative residues, extinction coefficient, instability index, aliphatic index and grand average hydropathy (GRAVY). In the present study, a high quality 3D structure and function of wheat protein (CAA35597.1) from NCBI has been predicted for the hypothetical amino acid sequence. For the prediction of secondary and tertiary structure of protein, LOMETS (LOcal MEta-Threading-Server) and I-TASSER (Iterative Threading Assembly Refinement) servers were used respectively. The models were validated using protein structure checking tool PROCHECK. These structures also provide a good foundation for functional analysis. Analysis show that the unknown query protein (CAA35597.1) is similar structurally and functionally to 1tmq_B and 1blu_A of Tenebrio molitor (Yellow mealworm) and Allochromatium vinosum respectively showing catalytic, binding and inhibitor activity (Molecular) with metabolic and cellular metabolic Activity (Biological).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

GEETIKA JETHRA, Unit of Simulation and Informatics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
A K MISHRA, Unit of Simulation and Informatics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
P S PANDEY, Unit of Simulation and Informatics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
H CHANDRASEKHARAN, Unit of Simulation and Informatics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012

References

Altschul S F et al. 1997. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Research 25: 3 389–402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.17.3389

Arakaki A K et al. 2004. Large-scale assessment of the utility of low-resolution protein structures for biochemical function assignment. Bioinformatics 20: 1 087–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth044

Battey J N et al. 2007. Automated server predictions in CASP7. Proteins 69: 68–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21761

Becker O M et al. 2006. An integrated in silico 3D model-driven discovery of a novel, potent, and selective amidosulfonamide 5-HT1A agonist (PRX-00023) for the treatment of anxiety and depression. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 49: 3 116–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0508641

Brenner S E et al. 2000. Expectations from structural genomics. Protein Science 9: 197–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.9.1.197

Brylinski M et al. 2008. Q-Dock: low-resolution flexible ligand docking with pocket-specific threading restraints. Journal of Computational Chemistry 29(10): 1 574–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20917

Cozzetto D et al. 2009. Evaluation of template-based models in CASP8 with standard measures. Proteins 77(9): 18–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.22561

Ekins S et al. 2007. In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond. British Journal of Pharma- cology 152: 21–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0707306

Jauch R et al. 2007. Assessment of CASP7 structure predictions for template free targets. Proteins 69: 57–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21771

Kopp J et al. 2007. Assessment of CASP7 predictions for template- based modeling targets. Proteins 69: 38–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21753

Kumar P A et al. 2011 Biotechnology and crop improvement. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81(9): 787–800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v81i9.10004

Liwo A et al. 1999. Protein structure prediction by global optimization of a potential energy function. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96: 5 482–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.10.5482

Malmstrom L et al. 2007. Superfamily assignments for the yeast proteome through integration of structure prediction with the gene ontology. PLoS Biology 5: 725–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050076

Roy A et al. 2011. A protocol for computer-based protein structure and function prediction. Journal of Visualized Experiments 57, e3259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3791/3259-v

Roy A et al. 2010. I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nature Protocols 5: 725–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2010.5

Roy A et al. 2009. Molecular and structural basis of drift in the functions of closely-related homologous enzyme domains: implications for function annotation based on homology searches and structural genomics. In Silico Biology 9: 41–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/ISB-2009-0379

Simons K T et al. 1997. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. Journal of Molecular Biology 268: 209–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1997.0959

Skolnick J et al. 2000. Structural genomics and its importance for gene function analysis. Nature Biotechnology 18: 283–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/73723

Stevens R C et al. 2001. Global efforts in structural genomics. Science 294: 89–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1066011

Terwilliger T C et al. 1998. Class-directed structure determination: foundation for a protein structure initiative. Protein Science 7: 1 851–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.5560070901

Wu S et al. 2007. Ab initio modeling of small proteins by iterative TASSER simulations. BMC Biology 5(17): 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-5-17

Yuan X et al. 2003. Ab initio protein structure prediction using pathway models. Comparative and Functional Genomics 4: 397– 401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cfg.305

Zhang Y et al. 2006. Structure modeling of all identified G protein- coupled receptors in the human genome. PLoS Computational Biology 2(2): 88–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020013

Zhang Y et al. 2003. TOUCHSTONE II: a new approach to Ab-initio protein structure prediction. Biophysical Journal 85: 1 145–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74551-2

Zhang Y. 2007. Template-based modeling and free modeling by I-TASSER in CASP7. Proteins 69: 108–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21702

Zhang Y. 2009. Protein structureprediction: when is it useful? Current Opinion in Structural Biology 19: 145–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2009.02.005