2011
DOI: 10.4236/jbpc.2011.22014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

MetalloPred: A tool for hierarchical prediction of metal ion binding proteins using cluster of neural networks and sequence derived features

Abstract: Given a protein sequence, how can we identify whether it is a metalloprotein or not? If it is, which main functional class and subclasses it belongs to? This is an important biological question because they are closely related to the biological function of an uncharacterized protein. Particularly, with the avalanche of protein sequences generated in the post genomic era and since conventional techniques are time consuming and expensive, it is highly desirable to develop an automated method by which one can get… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It covers 12 metal ions, provides metal‐bound 3D protein structures, and offers docking results. Compared to other tools like SVM‐Prot, 68 SeqCHED, 69 metallopred, 70 Metal detector, MetalExplorer, MetSite, 71 FINDSITE‐metal, 72 and Ion com, 73 MIB stands out for its user‐friendly interface and its ability to handle multiple ion–ligand binding efficiently, making it a superior choice for metal‐binding prediction and docking. Putative IBPs and CBPs were subsequently functionally annotated by NCBI‐CDD, 37 Pfam, 38 and InterProScan 39 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It covers 12 metal ions, provides metal‐bound 3D protein structures, and offers docking results. Compared to other tools like SVM‐Prot, 68 SeqCHED, 69 metallopred, 70 Metal detector, MetalExplorer, MetSite, 71 FINDSITE‐metal, 72 and Ion com, 73 MIB stands out for its user‐friendly interface and its ability to handle multiple ion–ligand binding efficiently, making it a superior choice for metal‐binding prediction and docking. Putative IBPs and CBPs were subsequently functionally annotated by NCBI‐CDD, 37 Pfam, 38 and InterProScan 39 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Surprisingly, the last 60–70 amino acid of all CAEDs were predicted to be metal-binding domains, by 2 different prediction programs, regardless of the presence or absence of the HD motif ( Table S3 ). Both programs Metallopred and SVMProt achieved more than 80% accuracy in validation tests [41] , [42] so the chance that all of these sequentially non-homologous protein segments, with similar functions, would be falsely predicted to have metal-binding capabilities seems to be marginal. Furthermore, the carboxy-terminal region of the extracellular domain of APLP1 and APLP2 orthologues is also predicted to bind metal ions, which suggests that metal-binding capability near the transmembrane anchor are evolutionary maintained and it is indispensable in order that APP orthologues and homologues exert their normal biological functions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Iron-binding proteins can be identified, modeled, or functionally analyzed using bioinformatics tools for plant proteomes. Iron-binding sites of proteins can be analyzed by using protein sequences or structures with online tools like MetalPredator (Valasatava et al 2016), MetSite (Sodhi et al 2004), MetalloPred (Naik et al 2011), or IonCom (Hu et al 2016). Besides, there are various bioinformatic tools available like MetalS 2 (Andreini et al 2013) (Zheng et al 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%