Difference between revisions of "Sequence-based predictions HEXA"

From Bioinformatikpedia
(→‎Prediction of disordered regions)
(→‎Prediction of transmembrane alpha-helices and signal peptides)
Line 335: Line 335:
 
|protein
  
|protein
 
|start position
  
|start position
−
|end position
 +
||end position
 
|location
  
|location
 
|start position
  
|start position

Revision as of 21:08, 30 August 2011

General Information

Secondary Structure Prediction

To analyse the secondary structure of our protein we used different methods. In our analysis we used PSIPRED, Jpred3 and DSSP. In the analysis section of this page we want to compare these three methods to see if the methods give similar results or if they differ extremely.

[Here] you can find some general information about these methods.

Back to [Tay-Sachs Disease]

Prediction of disordered regions

After analysing the secondary structure, we also want to have a look at disordered regions in this protein. Therefore, we used different methods. We used DISOPRED, POODLE in several variations, IUPred and Meta-Disorder. As before, with the the secondary structure prediction methods we want to compare the different methods and variants, if the predictions are similar. Therefore, we also want to decided which methods seems to be the best one for our purpose.

To get more insight into the methods and the theory behind them we also offer you an [general information page].

Back to [Tay-Sachs Disease]

Prediction of transmembrane helices and signal peptides

The third big analysis section is the prediction of transmembrane helices and signal peptides. We merged the prediction of transmembrane helices and signal peptides in one section, because there are several prediction methods which can predict both and therefore we looked at both predictions in this section.

Therefore we used several methods, some which only predict transmembrane helices, some which only predict signal peptides and some combined methods.

To have a closer look at the different methods we again provide an [information page.]

Back to [Tay-Sachs Disease]

Prediction of GO Terms

The last section is about the analysis of GO Terms. As before, we used several methods and compared them to each other.

Again we also provide an [general information page] about the GO Term methods, we used in our analysis.

Back to [Tay-Sachs Disease]

Secondary Structure prediction

Results

The detailed output of the different prediction methods can be found [here]

Here we only present a short summary of the output of the different methods.

  • Predicted Helices
method #helices
PSIPRED 14
Jpred3 14
DSSP 16
  • Predicted Beta-Sheets
method #sheets
PSIPRED 15
Jpred3 15
DSSP 0

Comparison of the different methods

To determine how successful our secondary structure prediction with PSIPRED and Jpred were, we had to compare it with the secondary structure assignment of DSSP. First of all, DSSP assigns no beta-sheets whereas both prediction methods predict some beta-sheets. Therefore, the main comparison in this case refers to the alpha-helices.

For PSIPRED the prediction of the alpha-helices was good. In most cases the alpha-helices of DSSP and PSIPRED correspond. There is only one helix which is predicted by PSIPRED which is not assigned as helix by DSSP. Furthermore there are three helices which are allocated as helices by DSSP which were not predicted by PSIPRED. The most of these helices which were presented only in one output are very small ones.

For Jpred3 the prediction of the alpha-helices was sufficiently good. In the most cases it agrees with DSSP. There are only two helices which are predicted by Jpred and which are not assigned by DSSP. In contrary, there are three small helices which are allocated to an alpha-helices by DSSP but are not predicted by Jpred. There is another special case where DSSP assigns two helices which are separated by a turn and Jpred predicts there only one big helix.

All in all, the prediction of the helices is probably good because they correspond mostly with the assignment of DSSP. The only negative aspect is, that both prediction methods predict a lot of sheets which were not assigned by DSSP at all.

Back to [Tay-Sachs Disease]

Prediction of disordered regions

Before we start with the analysis of the results of the different methods, we checked, if our protein has one or more disordered regions. Therefore, we search our protein in the [DisProt database] and did not find it, so our protein does not have any disordered regions. Another possibility to find out if the protein has disordered regions, is to check [UniProt], if there is an entry for [DisProt].

Results

The detailed results of the different methods can be found [here]

In this section, we only want to give a summary of the output of the different methods.

method #disordered regions in the protein #disordered regions on the brink
Disopred 0 2
POODLE-I 3 2
POODLE-L 0 0
POODLE-S (B-factors) 3 2
POODLE-S (missing residues) 4 2
IUPred (short) 0 2
IUPred (long) 0 0
IUPred (structural information) 0 0
Meta-Disorder 0 0

Comparison of the different POODLE variants

POODLE-L does not find any disordered regions. This is the result we expected, because our protein does not possess any disordered regions.

Both POODLE-S variants found several short disordered regions, which is a false positive result. Interestingly, there seems to be more missing electrons in the electron density map, than residues with high B-factor value.

POODLE-I found the same result as POODLE-S with high B-factor, which was expected, because POODLE-I combines POODLE-L and POODLE-S (high B-factor).

Therefore, the predictions of short disordered regions are wrong results. Only the prediction of POODLE-L is correct.

In general, these predictions are used, if nothing is known about the protein. Therefore, normally we do not know, that the prediction is wrong. Because of that, we want to trust the result and we want to check if the disordered regions overlap with the functionally important residues, because it seems that disordered regions are functionally very important. We check this for POODLE-S with missing residues and POODLE-I, because POODLE-S with high B-factor values shows the same result as POODLE-I.

functional residues disordered
residue position amino acid function POODLE-S (missing) POODLE-I
323 E active site ordered ordered
115 N Glycolysation ordered ordered
157 N Glycolysation ordered ordered
259 N Glycolysation ordered ordered
58 (connected with 104) C Disulfide bond disordered ordered
104 (connected with 58) C Disulfide bond disordered ordered
277 (connected with 328) C Disulfide bond ordered ordered
328 (connected with 277) C Disulfide bond ordered ordered
505 (connected with 522) C Disulfide bond ordered ordered
522 (connected with 505) C Disulfide bond ordered ordered

As you can see in the table above, only one disulfide bond is located in a disordered region, all other functionally important residues are located in ordered regions. This is a further good hint, that the predictions are wrong.

Comparison of the different methods

We decided to compare the results of the different methods. Therefore, we count how many residues are predicted as disordered, which is wrong in our case.

methods
Disopred POODLE-I POODLE-L POODLE-S (missing) POODLE-S (B-factor) IUPred (short) IUPred (long) IUPred (structure) Meta-Disorder
#wrong predicted residues 5 23 0 47 24 3 0 0 0



POODLE-L, IUPred(long) and IUPred(structure) predict the disordered regions correct. The worst prediction result gave POODLE-S (B-factor) which predicts 47 residues as disordered, followed by POODLE-S (missing) (24 wrong predicted residues) and POODLE-I (23 wrong predicted residues).

Back to [Tay-Sachs Disease]

Prediction of transmembrane alpha-helices and signal peptides

Because most of the proteins we used in this practical are not membrane proteins, we got five additional proteins for the transmembrane and signal peptide analyses.

Additional proteins:

name organism location transmembrane protein sequence
BACR_HALSA Halobacterium salinarium (Archaea) Cell membrane Multi-pass membrane protein [P02945.fasta]
RET4_HUMAN Human (Homo sapiens) extracellular space No [P02753.fasta]
INSL5_HUMAN Human (Homo sapiens) extracellular region No [Q9Y5Q6.fasta]
LAMP1_HUMAN Human (Homo sapiens) Cell membrane Single-pass membrane protein [P11279.fasta]
A4_HUMAN Human (Homo sapiens) Cell membrane Single-pass membrane protein [P05067.fasta]

The detailed output for the different organism and the different prediction methods can be found here:

Results

Transmembrane Helices

 TMHMM  Phobius  PolyPhobius  OCTOPUS  SPOCTOPUS
protein start position end position location start position end position location start position end position location start position end position location start position end position location
HEXA HUMAN 1 529 outside 23 529 outside 20 520 outside 1 2 inside 22 529 outside
3 23 TM helix
  24 529 outside
 BACR HALSA 1 22 outside 1 22 outside 1 22 outside
23 42 TM Helix 23 42 TM helix 22 43 TM helix 23 43 TM helix 23 43 TM helix
43 54 inside 43 53 inside 44 54 inside 44 54 inside 44 54 inside
55 77 TM Helix 54 76 TM helix 55 77 TM helix 55 75 TM helix 55 75 TM helix
78 91 outside 77 95 outside 78 94 outside 76 95 outside 76 95 outside
92 114 TM Helix 96 114 TM helix 95 114 TM helix 96 116 TM helix 96 116 TM helix
115 120 inside 115 120 inside 115 120 inside 117 121 inside 117 120 inside
121 143 TM Helix 121 142 TM helix 121 141 TM helix 122 142 TM helix 121 141 TM helix
144 147 outside 143 147 outside 142 147 outside 143 147 outside 142 147 outside
148 170 TM Helix 148 169 TM helix 148 166 TM helix 148 168 TM helix 148 168 TM helix
171 189 inside 170 189 inside 167 186 inside 169 185 inside 169 185 inside
190 212 TM Helix 190 212 TM helix 187 205 TM helix 186 206 TM helix 186 206 TM helix
213 262 outside 213 217 outside 206 215 outside 207 216 outside 207 216 outside
218 237 TM helix 216 237 TM helix 217 237 TM helix 217 237 TM helix
  238 262 inside 238 262 inside 238 262 inside 238 262 inside
 RET4 HUMAN 1 1 inside
2 23 TM helix
1 201 outside 19 201 outside 19 201 outside 24 201 outside 20 201 outside
 INSL5 HUMAN 1 1 inside
2 32 TM helix  
1 135 outside 23 135 outside 23 135 outside 33 135 outside 24 135 outside
LAMP1 HUMAN 1 10 inside 1 10 inside
11 33 TM Helix 11 31 TM helix
34 383 outside 29 381 outside 29 381 outside 32 383 outside 30 383 outside
384 406 TM Helix 382 405 TM helix 382 405 TM helix 384 404 TM helix 384 404 TM helix
407 417 inside 406 417 outside 406 417 outside 405 417 outside 405 417 outside
 A4 HUMAN 1 5 outside
6 11 R
1 700 outside 18 700 outside 18 700 outside 12 701 outside 19 701 outside
701 723 TM Helix 701 723 TM helix 701 723 TM helix 702 722 TM helix 702 722 TM helix
724 770 inside 724 770 inside 724 770 inside 723 770 inside 723 770 inside



On the table above, you can see the summary of the results of the different methods which predict transmembrane helices.

Signal Peptide

 Phobius  PolyPhobius  SPOCTOPUS TargetP  SignalP
protein start position end position start position end position start position end position location start position end position
HEXA HUMAN 1 22 1 19 7 21 secretory pathway 1 22
BACR HALSA no prediction available secretory pathway 1 38
RET4 HUMAN 1 18 1 18 6 19 secretory pathway 1 18
INSL5 HUMAN 1 22 1 22 6 23 secretory pathway 1 22
LAMP1 HUMAN 1 28 1 28 12 29 secretory pathway 1 28
A4 HUMAN 1 17 1 17 5 18 secretory pathway 1 15


In the last table there is a list with the results of the prediction of the signal peptides created by different methods.

Comparison of the different methods



We decided to split the comparison of the methods, because it is unfair to directly compare a method which can not predict a signal peptide and a method which predicts signal peptides. Therefore, we split the comparison in one comparison for transmembrane helices, one for signal peptides and one for the combination of both.

  • Comparison of transmembrane helix prediction



Here we compared TMHMM, OCTOPUS and the transmembrane predictions of SPOCTOPUS, Phobius and PolyPhobius. In this comparison we skipped the first residues which are signal peptides, because all only-transmembrane prediction methods predicted these region as transmembrane helices, which is wrong.
For this comparison we counted the wrong predicted transmembrane residues, the wrong predicted outside located residues and the wrong predicted inside residues.

methods
TMHMM Phobius PolyPhobius OCTOPUS SPOCTOPUS Transmembrane protein
HEXA_HUMAN #wrong transmembrane 0 0 0 0 0 no
#wrong outside 0 0 0 0 0
#wrong insde 0 0 0 0 0
#wrong sum 0 0 0 0 0
%wrong predicted 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
BACR_HALSA #wrong transmembrane 24 20 12 16 11 yes (7 transmembrane helices)
#wrong outside 46 5 3 4 6
#wrong inside 4 4 2 0 0
#wrong sum 74 29 17 20 17
%wrong predicted 29% 11% 6% 8% 6%
RET4_HUMAN #wrong transmembrane 0 0 0 5 0 no
#wrong outside 0 0 0 0 0
#wrong inside 0 0 0 0 0
#wrong sum 0 0 0 5 0
%wrong predicted 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
INSL5_HUMAN #wrong transmembrane 0 0 0 10 0 no
#wrong outside 0 0 0 0 0
#wrong inside 0 0 0 0 0
#wrong sum 0 0 0 10 0
%wrong predicted 0% 0% 0% 8% 0%
LAMP1_HUMAN #wrong transmembrane 5 3 4 3 1 yes (single-spanning)
#wrong outside 2 0 0 1 1
#wrong inside 0 0 0 1 1
#wrong sum 7 3 4 5 3
%wrong predicted 2% 0% 1% 1% 0%
A4_HUMAN #wrong transmembrane 0 0 0 0 0 yes (single-spanning)
#wrong outside 1 1 1 1 2
#wrong inside 0 0 0 1 1
#wrong sum 1 1 1 2 3
%wrong predicted 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average number of wrong predicted residues
13.6 5.5 3.6 7 3.8

TMHMM is the baddest prediction method. This can also be seen at the example of BACR_HALSA, because TMHMM is the only prediction method, which do not recognize the 7 transmembrane helices. SPOCTOPUS and PolyPhobius are the best prediction methods.

In general the prediction of transmembrane helices works quite good and almost all predictions are very close to the real protein.

  • Comparison of signal peptide prediction



Now we compared TargetP and SignalP which can only predict signal peptides. Furthermore we compared SPOCTOPUS, Phobius and PolyPhobius. TargetP does not predict the start and end position of the signal peptide, instead it predicts only the location of the protein.

methods
real position Phobius PolyPhobius SPOCTOPUS TargetP SignalP
HEXA_HUMAN stop position 22 22 19 21 no prediction 22
#wrong residues 0 3 3 no prediction 0
location secretory pathway secretory pathway secretory pathway no prediction secretory pathway no prediction
BACR_HALSA stop position not available no prediction no prediction no prediction no prediction no consensus prediction
#wrong predicted not available not available not available not available no prediction not available
location membrane not available not available not available secretory pathway non-signal peptide
RET4_HUMAN stop position 18 18 18 19 no prediction 18
#wrong predicted 0 0 1 no prediction 0
location secretory pathway secretory pathway secretory pathway no prediction secretory pathway no prediction
INSL5_HUMAN stop position 22 22 22 22 no prediction 22
#wrong residues 0 0 0 no prediction 0
location secretory pathway secretory pathway secretory pathway no prediction secretory pathway no prediction
LAMP1_HUMAN stop position 28 28 28 29 no prediction 28
#wrong residues 0 0 1 no prediction 0
location transmembrane helix secretory pathway secretory pathway no prediction secretory pathway no prediction
A4_HUMAN stop position 17 17 17 18 no prediction 17
#wrong residues 0 0 1 no prediction 0
location transmembrane helix secretory pathway secretory pathway no prediction secretory pathway secretory pathway
Average number of wrong prediction
sum of wrong predicted residues 0 3 2 no prediction 0
#right predicted locations / #predicted locations 3/5 3/5 no prediction 3/5 no prediction

SPOCTOPUS and SignalP do not predict the location of the protein, they only predict the start and stop position of the signal peptide. Furthermore, SignalP predicts if it is a signal peptide or not. In contrast, TargetP only predicts the location of the protein, not the start and stop position of the signal peptide. Only Phobius and PolyPhobius predict both.
Therefore, it is difficult to compare the different methods. First of all, Phobius and PolyPhobius have more power than the other prediction methods, because they predict both. In average they predict the location and also the position as good as the other prediction methods. None of the methods could predict the transmembrane proteins, all methods predict them as proteins of the secretory pathway. Therefore, it is useful to use Phobius or PolyPhobius, because they predict more than the other methods. Furthermore, both methods can also predict transmembrane helices. The results of Phobius were a litte bit better than the results of PolyPhobius.
We also wanted to mention, that SignalP gave you the possibility to choose between the prediction for eukaryotes, gram-positive bacteria and gram-negative bacteria. In our analyse we also analysied BACR_HALSA, which is an archaea protein. We tested all three prediction methods for this protein and all three methods failed. BACR_HALSA don't posses a signal peptide, but every method predicts one. Only the eukaryotic prediction method recogniced a signal anchor for BACR_HALSA, whereas the other two methods could not give a prediction of the location.



  • Comparison of the combined methods



The last thing, which we wanted to compare, was the combined methods. SPOCTOPUS, Phobius and PolyPhobius can predict transmembrane helices as well as signal peptides. Therefore we combined our two further comparisons.

methods
Phobius PolyPhobius SPOCTOPUS
 HEXA_HUMAN #wrong predicted residues (TM) 0 0 0
#wrong predicted residues (SP) 0 3 2
location right right no prediction
 BACR_HALSA #wrong predicted residues (TM) 29 17 17
#wrong predicted residues (SP) n.a. n.a. n.a.
location n.a n.a no prediction
RET4_HUMAN #wrong predicted residues (TM) 0 0 0
#wrong predicted residues (SP) 0 0 0
location right right no prediction
INSL5_HUMAN #wrong predicted residues (TM) 0 0 0
#wrong predicted residues (SP) 0 0 1
location right right no prediction
LAMP1_HUMAN #wrong predicted residues (TM) 3 4 3
#wrong predicted residues (SP) 0 0 0
location wrong wrong no prediction
A4_HUMAN #wrong predicted residues (TM) 0 0 0
#wrong predicted residues (SP) 1 1 3
location wrong wrong no prediction
 Average
avg(#wrong predicted residues (TM)) 5.3 3.5 3.3
avg(#wrong predicted residues (SP)) 0.1 0.6 1
#location (right predicted) / #location(predicted) 3/5 3/5 no prediction

In general, PolyPhobius gave the best results. Although it predicts the singal peptide stop position a little bit badder than Phobius, the transmembrane prediction is significant bettern than by Phobius. The predictions of SPOCTOPUS are also good, but sadly SPOCTOPUS does not predict the location of the protein.
Therefore, it seems a good choice to use PolyPhobius, which is in average the best method for transmembrane and signal peptide prediction.

Prediction of GO terms

Before we start with out analysis, we decided to check the GO annotations for the six sequences, which can be found [here]:

A detailed list of the GO annotation terms of each protein can be found [here].

Results

We created for each protein an own result page. Sadly, it is not possible to summarize the results in a short way, so please have a look at the different result pages for a detailed output.



Comparison of the different methods



It is difficult to compare these methods. First of all, two methods are based on homology-based prediction, whereas ProtFun is based on ab initio prediction. So it is clear, that the results differ. Second, each method has another prediction focus and called the results a little bit different. Only GOPET predicts exact GO numbers, the other two methods only predict the approximate functions and processes.
Therefore, to compare the results, we decided to calculate the fraction of right prediction and the ratio between right predictions and annotated GO terms.

methods
GOPET terms GOPET GOids Pfam ProtFun
HEXA_HUMAN #true positive 7 7 2 31
#false negative 1 1 0 3
#predictions 8 8 2 34
#GO terms 25
true positive (in %) 0.87 0.87 1 0.91
ratio true positive/annotated GO terms 0.28 0.28 0.08 not possible
BACR_HALSA #true positive 2 1 1 30
#false negative 1 2 0 4
#predictions 3 3 1 34
#GO terms 12
true positive (in %) 0.66 0.33 1 0.88
ratio true positive/annotated GO terms 0.16 0.08 0.08 not possible
RET4_HUMAN #true positive 5 5 1 30
#false negative 3 3 0 4
#predictions 8 8 1 34
#GO terms 41
true positive (in %) 0.62 0.62 1 0.88
ratio true positive/annotated GO terms 0.12 0.12 0.02 not possible
INSL5_HUMAN #true positive 1 1 1 32
#false negative 0 0 0 2
#predictions 1 1 1 34
#GO terms 4
true positive (in %) 1 1 1 0.94
ratio true positive/annotated GO terms 0.25 0.25 0.25 not possible
LAMP1_HUMAN #true positive 0 0 1 33
#false negative 2 2 0 1
#predictions 2 2 1 34
#GO terms 17
true positive (in %) 0 0 1 0.97
ratio true positive/annotated GO terms 0 0 0.05 not possible
A4_HUMAN #true positive 7 7 6 33
#false negative 6 6 0 1
#predictions 13 13 6 34
#GO terms 78
true positive (in %) 0.53 0.53 1 0.97
ratio true positive/annotated GO terms 0.08 0.08 0.07 not possible

As you can see in the tabel above, each method only predict a small subgroup of the real annotated GO terms. In general, GOPET seems to be the best method, because GOPET is the onyl method which predicts the GO Terms and in sum, it has mostly the best ratio by prediction true positive and it also predicts more GO terms than the other methods.
It was not possible to calculate the ratio between true positives and annotated GO terms for ProtFun, because this method has defined terms and only predicts the probability, that the protein belongs to these terms.
In general, you can say GO term prediction does not work very well and the prediction results only give hints of the function and localization of the protein.

Retrieved from "https://i12r-studfilesrv.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/wiki/index.php?title=Sequence-based_predictions_HEXA&oldid=12966"