Expanding kinetoplastid genome annotation through protein structure comparison
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Kinetoplastids belong to the Discoba supergroup, an early divergent eukaryotic clade. Although the amount of genomic information on these parasites has grown substantially, assigning gene functions through traditional sequence-based homology methods remains challenging. Recently, significant advancements have been made in in-silico protein structure prediction and algorithms for rapid and precise large-scale protein structure comparisons. In this work, we developed a protein structure-based homology search pipeline (ASC, Annotation by Structural Comparisons) and applied it to transfer biological information to all kinetoplastid proteins available in TriTrypDB, the reference database for this lineage. Our pipeline enabled the assignment of structural similarity to a substantial portion of kinetoplastid proteins, improving current knowledge through annotation transfer. Additionally, we identified structural homologs for representatives of 6,700 uncharacterized proteins across 33 kinetoplastid species, proteins that could not be annotated using existing sequence-based tools and databases. As a result, this approach allowed us to infer potential biological information for a considerable number of kinetoplastid proteins. Among these, we identified structural homologs to ubiquitous eukaryotic proteins that are challenging to detect in kinetoplastid genomes through standard genome annotation pipelines. The results (KASC, Kinetoplastid Annotation by Structural Comparison) are openly accessible to the community at kasc.fcien.edu.uy through a user-friendly, gene-by-gene interface that enables visual inspection of the data.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,523 · see citing works
Fast and accurate protein structure search with Foldseek
van Kempen, M., Kim, S. S., Tumescheit, C., Mirdita, M., Lee, J., Gilchrist, C. L. M., Söding, J., & Steinegger, M. (2024) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01773-0 · Cited by 2,596 · see citing works
FATCAT 2.0: towards a better understanding of the structural diversity of proteins
Li, Z., Jaroszewski, L., Iyer, M., Sedova, M., & Godzik, A. (2020) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkaa443 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Reciprocal best structure hits: using AlphaFold models to discover distant homologues
Monzon, V., Paysan-Lafosse, T., Wood, V., & Bateman, A. (2022) · Bioinformatics Advances · doi:10.1093/bioadv/vbac072 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Trinidad-Barnech, J. M., Sotelo-Silveira, J., Do Porto, D. F., & Smircich, P.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de la República de Uruguay (UY)
- Corresponding author
- Smircich, Pablo
- Venue
- PLOS Pathogens
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2025-04-21
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e1013120
- ISSN
- 1553-7366 (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7374
- PMC
- PMC12047770
- OpenAlex
- W4409640414
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3
- FWCI
- 0.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2025-05-02)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS Pathogens (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CONICET Digital (CONICET) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación (FCE_1_2023_1_176426)
- Comisión Academica de Posgrado, Universidad de la República (Beca de Doctorado)
- Programa de Desarrollo de las Ciencias Básicas (Alicuota)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Trypanosoma species research and implications
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Keywords
- kinetoplastids, genome annotation, protein structure comparison, structural homology, annotation transfer, hypothetical protein, protein structure prediction
- MeSH terms
- Protozoan Proteins, Kinetoplastida, Genome, Protozoan, Molecular Sequence Annotation
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