It has become increasingly apparent that geometric relationships often exist between regions of two proteins that have quite different global topologies or folds. In this article, we examine whether such relationships can be used to infer a functional connection between the two proteins in question. We find, by considering a number of examples involving metal and cation binding, sugar binding, and aromatic group binding, that geometrically similar protein fragments can share related functions, even if they have been classified as belonging to different folds and topologies. Thus, the use of classifications inevitably limits the number of functional inferences that can be obtained from the comparative analysis of protein structures. In contrast, the development of interactive computational tools that recognize the ''continuous'' nature of protein structure/function space, by increasing the number of potentially meaningful relationships that are considered, may offer a dramatic enhancement in the ability to extract information from protein structure databases. We introduce the MarkUs server, that embodies this strategy and that is designed for a user interested in developing and validating specific functional hypotheses.protein fold space ͉ protein function annotation ͉ protein structure alignment ͉ protein structure similarity T he identification of structural and functional relationships between proteins based on similarities in their amino acid sequence is an essential component of modern biology. It has been recognized for some time that two proteins can be similar to one another in structure despite a lack of any detectable sequence similarity and that this information can be used to assign function. There has been considerable discussion over the past several years as to how structural similarities can most usefully be described (1-8). Widely used databases such as SCOP (9) and CATH (10) describe relationships between proteins using a hierarchy of classifications that reflect similarities in the spatial organization of secondary structure elements (SSEs). For example, proteins with the same overall SSE composition are described as belonging to the same ''class,'' and proteins with similar spatial arrangements of SSE's are described as belonging to the same ''fold'' or ''topology.'' Classification implies discreteness in the organization of structure space in that a protein that is assigned to one class or fold will not belong to another.An alternative view suggests that protein structure space should be viewed as ''continuous'' rather than discrete (1,2,6,8). Indeed, it has become apparent that structural relationships between protein domains exist at various scales; from small sets of SSE's (4), to larger fragments (1, 2), even when the proteins have been assigned to different folds and structural classes (3). Such structural and/or functional relationships between fragments of two different proteins have been extensively discussed (5, 7, 11, 12) and pose serious challenges to hierarchical classification sc...