Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6,170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction

Open access
Roy, Ambrish, Kucukural, Alper, Zhang, Yang·2010·Nature Protocols
DOI 10.1038/nprot.2010.5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The iterative threading assembly refinement (I-TASSER) server is an integrated platform for automated protein structure and function prediction based on the sequence-to-structure-to-function paradigm. Starting from an amino acid sequence, I-TASSER first generates three-dimensional (3D) atomic models from multiple threading alignments and iterative structural assembly simulations. The function of the protein is then inferred by structurally matching the 3D models with other known proteins. The output from a typical server run contains full-length secondary and tertiary structure predictions, and functional annotations on ligand-binding sites, Enzyme Commission numbers and Gene Ontology terms. An estimate of accuracy of the predictions is provided based on the confidence score of the modeling. This protocol provides new insights and guidelines for designing of online server systems for the state-of-the-art protein structure and function predictions. The server is available at http://zhanglab.ccmb.med.umich.edu/I-TASSER.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nprot.2010.5

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. The UniProt, C. The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) 2009. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D169–D174 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Berman, H.M. et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 235–242 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Zhang, Y. Progress and challenges in protein structure prediction. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 18, 342–348 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bowie, J.U., Luthy, R. & Eisenberg, D. A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science 253, 164–170 (1991). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Liwo, A., Lee, J., Ripoll, D.R., Pillardy, J. & Scheraga, H.A. Protein structure prediction by global optimization of a potential energy function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5482–5485 (1999). · DOI
  6. Simons, K.T., Kooperberg, C., Huang, E. & Baker, D. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J. Mol. Biol. 268, 209–225 (1997). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Wu, S., Skolnick, J. & Zhang, Y. Ab initio modeling of small proteins by iterative TASSER simulations. BMC Biol. 5, 17 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Jauch, R., Yeo, H.C., Kolatkar, P.R. & Clarke, N.D. Assessment of CASP7 structure predictions for template free targets. Proteins 69, 57–67 (2007). · DOI
  9. Zhang, Y., Kolinski, A. & Skolnick, J. TOUCHSTONE II: a new approach to ab initio protein structure prediction. Biophys. J. 85, 1145–1164 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Battey, J.N. et al. Automated server predictions in CASP7. Proteins 69, 68–82 (2007). · DOI
  11. Moult, J. et al. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction-Round VII. Proteins 69 (Suppl 8): 3–9 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Kopp, J., Bordoli, L., Battey, J.N., Kiefer, F. & Schwede, T. Assessment of CASP7 predictions for template-based modeling targets. Proteins 69, 38–56 (2007). · DOI
  13. Das, R. et al. Structure prediction for CASP7 targets using extensive all-atom refinement with Rosetta@home. Proteins 69, 118–128 (2007). · DOI
  14. Zhang, Y. Template-based modeling and free modeling by I-TASSER in CASP7. Proteins 69, 108–117 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Zhou, H. et al. Analysis of TASSER-based CASP7 protein structure prediction results. Proteins 69 (Suppl 8): 90–97 (2007). · DOI
  16. Zhang, Y. I-TASSER: fully automated protein structure prediction in CASP8. Proteins 77, 100–113 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Cozzetto, D. et al. Evaluation of template-based models in CASP8 with standard measures. Proteins 77 (Suppl 9): 18–28 (2009). · DOI
  18. Ekins, S., Mestres, J. & Testa, B. In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond. Br. J. Pharmacol. 152, 21–37 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Becker, O.M. et al. An integrated in silico 3D model-driven discovery of a novel, potent, and selective amidosulfonamide 5-HT1A agonist (PRX-00023) for the treatment of anxiety and depression. J. Med. Chem. 49, 3116–3135 (2006). · DOI
  20. Brylinski, M. & Skolnick, J. Q-Dock: low-resolution flexible ligand docking with pocket-specific threading restraints. J. Comput. Chem. 29, 1574–1588 (2008). · DOI
  21. Arakaki, A.K., Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. Large-scale assessment of the utility of low-resolution protein structures for biochemical function assignment. Bioinformatics 20, 1087–1096 (2004). · DOI
  22. Yue, P. & Moult, J. Identification and analysis of deleterious human SNPs. J. Mol. Biol. 356, 1263–1274 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Boyd, A. et al. A random mutagenesis approach to isolate dominant-negative yeast sec1 mutants reveals a functional role for domain 3a in yeast and mammalian Sec1/Munc18 proteins. Genetics 180, 165–178 (2008). · DOI
  24. Ye, Y., Li, Z. & Godzik, A. Modeling and analyzing three-dimensional structures of human disease proteins. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 11, 439–450 (2006).
  25. Keedy, D.A. et al. The other 90% of the protein: assessment beyond the Calphas for CASP8 template-based and high-accuracy models. Proteins 77 (Suppl 9): 29–49 (2009). · DOI
  26. Tress, M., Ezkurdia, I., Grana, O., Lopez, G. & Valencia, A. Assessment of predictions submitted for the CASP6 comparative modeling category. Proteins 61 (Suppl 7): 27–45 (2005). · DOI
  27. Moult, J. Comparative modeling in structural genomics. Structure 16, 14–16 (2008). · DOI
  28. Tress, M. et al. Assessment of predictions submitted for the CASP7 domain prediction category. Proteins 69 (Suppl 8): 137–151 (2007). · DOI
  29. Malmstrom, L. et al. Superfamily assignments for the yeast proteome through integration of structure prediction with the gene ontology. PLoS Biol. 5, e76 (2007). · DOI
  30. Zhang, Y., Devries, M.E. & Skolnick, J. Structure modeling of all identified G protein-coupled receptors in the human genome. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2, e13 (2006). · DOI
  31. Lopez, G., Rojas, A., Tress, M. & Valencia, A. Assessment of predictions submitted for the CASP7 function prediction category. Proteins 69 (Suppl 8): 165–174 (2007). · DOI
  32. Brylinski, M. & Skolnick, J. A threading-based method (FINDSITE) for ligand-binding site prediction and functional annotation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 129–134 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  33. Roy, A., Srinivasan, N. & Gowri, V.S. Molecular and structural basis of drift in the functions of closely-related homologous enzyme domains: implications for function annotation based on homology searches and structural genomics. In Silico Biol. 9, S41–S55 (2009). · DOI
  34. Bork, P., Sander, C. & Valencia, A. Convergent evolution of similar enzymatic function on different protein folds: the hexokinase, ribokinase, and galactokinase families of sugar kinases. Protein Sci. 2, 31–40 (1993). · DOI · Paper page
  35. Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. Tertiary structure predictions on a comprehensive benchmark of medium to large size proteins. Biophys. J. 87, 2647–2655 (2004). · DOI
  36. Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on a genomic scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 7594–7599 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  37. Karplus, K., Barrett, C. & Hughey, R. Hidden Markov models for detecting remote protein homologies. Bioinformatics 14, 846–856 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  38. McGuffin, L.J. & Jones, D.T. Improvement of the GenTHREADER method for genomic fold recognition. Bioinformatics 19, 874–881 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  39. Wallner, B. & Elofsson, A. Pcons5: combining consensus, structural evaluation and fold recognition scores. Bioinformatics 21, 4248–4254 (2005). · DOI
  40. Soding, J. Protein homology detection by HMM-HMM comparison. Bioinformatics 21, 951–960 (2005). · DOI
  41. Rost, B., Yachdav, G. & Liu, J. The PredictProtein server. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, W321–W326 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  42. Ginalski, K., Elofsson, A., Fischer, D. & Rychlewski, L. 3D-Jury: a simple approach to improve protein structure predictions. Bioinformatics 19, 1015–1018 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  43. Fischer, D. 3D-SHOTGUN: a novel, cooperative, fold-recognition meta-predictor. Proteins 51, 434–441 (2003). · DOI
  44. Kim, D.E., Chivian, D. & Baker, D. Protein structure prediction and analysis using the Robetta server. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, W526–W531 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  45. Kelley, L.A. & Sternberg, M.J. Protein structure prediction on the Web: a case study using the Phyre server. Nat. Protoc. 4, 363–371 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  46. Jones, D.T. Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. J. Mol. Biol. 292, 195–202 (1999). · DOI
  47. Wu, S. & Zhang, Y. LOMETS: a local meta-threading-server for protein structure prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, 3375–3382 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  48. Shi, J., Blundell, T.L. & Mizuguchi, K. FUGUE: sequence-structure homology recognition using environment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. J. Mol. Biol. 310, 243–257 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  49. Wu, S. & Zhang, Y. MUSTER: improving protein sequence profile-profile alignments by using multiple sources of structure information. Proteins 72, 547–556 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  50. Xu, Y. & Xu, D. Protein threading using PROSPECT: design and evaluation. Proteins 40, 343–354 (2000). · DOI
  51. Zhou, H. & Zhou, Y. Fold recognition by combining sequence profiles derived from evolution and from depth-dependent structural alignment of fragments. Proteins 58, 321–328 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  52. Zhou, H. & Zhou, Y. Single-body residue-level knowledge-based energy score combined with sequence-profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition. Proteins 55, 1005–1013 (2004). · DOI
  53. Zhang, Y., Kihara, D. & Skolnick, J. Local energy landscape flattening: parallel hyperbolic Monte Carlo sampling of protein folding. Proteins 48, 192–201 (2002). · DOI
  54. Zhang, Y., Hubner, I., Arakaki, A., Shakhnovich, E. & Skolnick, J. On the origin and completeness of highly likely single domain protein structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 2605–2610 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  55. Chen, H. & Zhou, H.X. Prediction of solvent accessibility and sites of deleterious mutations from protein sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 3193–3199 (2005). · DOI
  56. Wu, S. & Zhang, Y. A comprehensive assessment of sequence-based and template-based methods for protein contact prediction. Bioinformatics 24, 924–931 (2008). · DOI
  57. Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. SPICKER: A clustering approach to identify near-native protein folds. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 865–871 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  58. Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 2302–2309 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  59. Li, Y. & Zhang, Y. REMO: a new protocol to refine full atomic protein models from C-α traces by optimizing hydrogen-bonding networks. Proteins 76, 665–676 (2009). · DOI
  60. Barrett, A.J. Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (NC-IUBMB). Enzyme Nomenclature. Recommendations 1992. Supplement 4: corrections and additions (1997). Eur. J. Biochem. 250, 1–6 (1997). · DOI
  61. Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins 57, 702–710 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  62. Li, W., Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. Application of sparse NMR restraints to large-scale protein structure prediction. Biophys. J. 87, 1241–1248 (2004). · DOI
  63. Sali, A. & Blundell, T.L. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J. Mol. Biol. 234, 779–815 (1993). · DOI · Paper page
  64. Betancourt, M.R. & Skolnick, J. Universal similarity measure for comparing protein structures. Biopolymers 59, 305–309 (2001). · DOI

Cited by

See all 6,170

Metadata

Authors
Roy, A., Kucukural, A., & Zhang, Y.
Venue
Nature Protocols
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-03-25
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
725-738
ISSN
  • 1750-2799 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-2189
DOI
10.1038/nprot.2010.5
OpenAlex
W2037312364
Cited by
6,170
References
7
FWCI
116.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.