Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T07:11:05.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Protein Motifs and Domain Prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Jin Xiong
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access

Summary

An important aspect of biological sequence characterization is identification of motifs and domains. It is an important way to characterize unknown protein functions because a newly obtained protein sequence often lacks significant similarity with database sequences of known functions over their entire length, which makes functional assignment difficult. In this case, biologists can gain insight of the protein function based on identification of short consensus sequences related to known functions. These consensus sequence patterns are termed motifs and domains.

A motif is a short conserved sequence pattern associated with distinct functions of a protein or DNA. It is often associated with a distinct structural site performing a particular function. A typical motif, such as a Zn-finger motif, is ten to twenty amino acids long. A domain is also a conserved sequence pattern, defined as an independent functional and structural unit. Domains are normally longer than motifs. A domain consists of more than 40 residues and up to 700 residues, with an average length of 100 residues. A domain may or may not include motifs within its boundaries. Examples of domains include transmembrane domains and ligand-binding domains.

Motifs and domains are evolutionarily more conserved than other regions of a protein and tend to evolve as units, which are gained, lost, or shuffled as one module. The identification of motifs and domains in proteins is an important aspect of the classification of protein sequences and functional annotation.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Attwood, T. K. 2000. The quest to deduce protein function from sequence: The role of pattern databases. Int. J. Biochem. Cell. Biol. 32:139–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Attwood, T. K. 2002. The PRINTS database: A resource for identification of protein families. Brief. Bioinform. 3:252–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biswas, M., O'Rourke, J. F., Camon, E., Fraser, G., Kanapin, A., Karavidopoulou, Y., Kersey, P.. Applications of InterPro in protein annotation and genome analysis. Brief. Bioinform. 3:285–95CrossRef
Copley, R. R., Ponting, C. P., Schultz, J., and Bork, P. 2002. Sequence analysis of multidomain proteins: Past perspectives and future directions. Adv. Protein Chem. 61:75–98CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanehisa, M., and Bork, P. 2003. Bioinformatics in the post-sequence era. Nat. Genet. 33 (Suppl): 305–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, L., and Ranganathan, S. 2004. Delineation of modular proteins: Domain boundary prediction from sequence information. Brief. Bioinform. 5:179–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kriventseva, E. V., Biswas, M., and Apweiler, R. 2001. Clustering and analysis of protein families. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 11:334–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, J., and Rost, B. 2003. Domains, motifs and clusters in the protein universe. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 7:5–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peri, S., Ibarrola, N., Blagoev, B., Mann, M., and Pandey, A. 2001. Common pitfalls in bioinformatics-based analyses: Look before you leap. Trends Genet. 17:541–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Servant, F., Bru, C., Carrere, S., Courcelle, E., Gouzy, J., Peyruc, D., and Kahn, D. 2002. ProDom: Automated clustering of homologous domains. Brief. Bioinform. 3:246–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sigrist, C. J., Cerutti, L., Hulo, N., Gattiker, A., Falquet, L., Pagni, M., Bairoch, A., and Bucher, P. 2002. PROSITE: A documented database using patterns and profiles as motif descriptors. Brief. Bioinform. 3:265–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, C. H., Huang, H., Yeh, L. S., and Barker, W. C. 2003. Protein family classification and functional annotation. Comput. Biol. Chem. 27:37–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×