Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Statistics
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login

A systematic comparison of protein structure classifications: SCOP, CATH and FSSP

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

UNSPECIFIED (1999) A systematic comparison of protein structure classifications: SCOP, CATH and FSSP. STRUCTURE, 7 (9). pp. 1099-1112. ISSN 0969-2126

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Background: Several methods of structural classification have been developed to introduce some order to the large amount of data present in the Protein Data Bank. Such methods facilitate structural comparisons and provide a greater understanding of structure and function. The most widely used and comprehensive databases are SCOP, OATH and FSSP, which represent three unique methods of classifying protein structures: purely manual, a combination of manual and automated, and purely automated, respectively. In order to develop reliable template libraries and benchmarks for protein-fold recognition, a systematic comparison of these databases has been carried out to determine their overall agreement in classifying protein structures. Results: Approximately two-thirds of the protein chains in each database are common to all three databases. Despite employing different methods, and basing their systems on different rules of protein structure and taxonomy, SCOP, CATH and FSSP agree on the majority of their classifications. Discrepancies and inconsistencies are accounted for by a small number of explanations. Other interesting features have been identified, and Various differences between manual and automatic classification methods are presented. Conclusions: Using these databases requires an understanding of the rules upon which they are based; each method offers certain advantages depending on the biological requirements and knowledge of the user. The degree of discrepancy between the systems also has an impact on reliability of prediction methods that employ these schemes as benchmarks. To generate accurate fold templates for threading, we extract information from a consensus database, encompassing agreements between SCOP, CATH and FSSP.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Q Science > QD Chemistry
Q Science > QH Natural history > QH301 Biology
Journal or Publication Title: STRUCTURE
Publisher: CURRENT BIOLOGY LTD
ISSN: 0969-2126
Date: 15 September 1999
Volume: 7
Number: 9
Number of Pages: 14
Page Range: pp. 1099-1112
Publication Status: Published
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/14166

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: publications@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us