Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Doig, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Doig, A. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Protein Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 7, 545-554, July 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press

A critical assessment of the secondary structure {alpha}-helices and their termini in proteins

Claire L. Wilson, Simon J. Hubbard,1 and Andrew J. Doig

Department of Biomolecular Sciences, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK

Secondary structure prediction from amino acid sequence is a key component of protein structure prediction, with current accuracy at ~75%. We analysed two state-of-the-art secondary structure prediction methods, PHD and JPRED, comparing predictions with secondary structure assigned by the algorithms DSSP and STRIDE. The specific focus of our study was {alpha}-helix N-termini, as empirical free energy scales are available for residue preferences at N-terminal positions. Although these prediction methods perform well in general at predicting the {alpha}-helical locations and length distributions in proteins, they perform less well at predicting the correct helical termini. For example, although most predicted {alpha}-helices overlap a real {alpha}-helix (with relatively few completely missed or extra predicted helices), only one-third of JPRED and PHD predictions correctly identify the N-terminus. Analysis of neighbouring N-terminal sequences to predicted helical N-termini shows that the correct N-terminus is often within one or two residues. More importantly, the true N-terminal motif is, on average, more favourable as judged by our experimentally measured free energies. This suggests a simple, but powerful, strategy to improve secondary structure prediction using empirically derived energies to adjust the predicted output to a more favourable N-terminal sequence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Protein Eng Des SelHome page
J. M. Cuthbertson, D. A. Doyle, and M. S.P. Sansom
Transmembrane helix prediction: a comparative evaluation and analysis
Protein Eng. Des. Sel., June 1, 2005; 18(6): 295 - 308.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.