 Research
 Open Access
Protein structural class prediction based on an improved statistical strategy
 Fei Gu^{1},
 Hang Chen^{2}Email author and
 Jun Ni^{3}
https://doi.org/10.1186/147121059S6S5
© Gu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
 Published: 28 May 2008
Abstract
Background
A protein structural class (PSC) belongs to the most basic but important classification in protein structures. The prediction technique of protein structural class has been developing for decades. Two popular indices are the aminoacidfrequency (AAF) based, and aminoacidarrangement (AAA) with longterm correlation (LTC) – based indices. They were proposed in many works. Both indices have its pros and cons. For example, the AAF index focuses on a statistical analysis, while the AAALTC emphasizes the longterm, biological significance. Unfortunately, the datasets used in previous work were not very reliable for a small number of sequences with a highsequence similarity.
Results
By modifying a statistical strategy, we proposed a new index method that combines probability and information theory together with a longterm correlation. We also proposed a numerically and biologically reliable dataset included more than 5700 sequences with a low sequence similarity. The results showed that the proposed approach has its high accuracy. Comparing with amino acid composition (AAC) index using a distance method, the accuracy of our approach has a 16–20% improvement for resubstitution test and about 6–11% improvement for crossvalidation test. The values were about 23% and 15% for the component coupled method (CCM).
Conclusion
A new index method, combining probability and information theory together with a longterm correlation was proposed in this paper. The statistical method was improved significantly based on our new index. The cross validation test was conducted, and the result show the proposed method has a great improvement.
Keywords
 Conditional Probability
 Amino Acid Composition
 Component Couple
 Protein Structural Class
 Cyclic Boundary Condition
Background
Protein function is strongly related to its structure. Analysis of protein functions becomes a fundamental research domain to comprehend its structures. Nowadays, with the increased number of parsed structure entries in bioinformatics databases, it is important to do classification of protein structures in bioinformatics research. Scientists had developed various methodologies for the classification of protein structures. For example, based on the structure types and the arrangements of secondary structural elements, Levitt and Chothia [1] proposed a method to recognize ten protein classes, four principal and six small classes of a protein structure. Biological scientists common focus on the first four principal classes. They are allα, allβ, α/β, and α+β classes, respectively. Therefore, the prediction of the four principal protein structural classes is the foundation in the field of protein analysis. In the fundamental study, many indices and methods were proposed to predict protein structural class [2–7]. The commonlyused indices and their corresponding methods are described briefly in the following.
Nishkawa [8] et al. found that protein structural classes are related to their amino acid compositions (AAC). Based on this hypnosis, Chou [9, 10] proposed standard vectors from amino acid composition in proteins. The statisticsbased indices are 20dimensional vectors, through which each variant corresponds to one amino acid occurrence frequency in protein sequence. Although these indices can be considered the eigenvector of a sequence, the information is insufficient enough to reflect the correlation among residues. Another weakness is that the statistics indices can not reflect the biological significance commendably. Accordingly, several methods were proposed such as the distancebased algorithm [11, 12], componentcoupledbased algorithm [13–15], support vector machine (SVM) based algorithm [16] and others [17, 18].
Alternatively, people can introduce proteinstructuralclass prediction index, which is based on the residues' arrangement and correlation in analysis of proteins. Such index method that uses various physiochemical properties has been experimented and adopted in the prediction. For example, Bu et al. [19] found that the autocorrelation function (ACF) of average nonbonded energy can represent the protein structural class with a better accuracy of prediction. Although a longterm correlation between different residues was considered, it did not include the statistical characteristics of sequences.
In this paper, a new index method is proposed. The method is based on the information and probability theories. In this method, a residue occurrence frequency is used instead of physiochemical indices for longterm correlation calculation. The statistical strategy of residue occurrence frequency is changed from a single sequence to a wholetraining dataset. The results showed that the accuracy is significantly improved.
Methods
Suppose the whole dataset S contains N sequences, and this dataset can be divided into m (in this paper, we set m = 4; without losing generality) subsets S_{ ξ }(ξ = 1, 2,......, m), thus,
S = S_{1} ∪ S_{2} ∪ ...... ∪ S_{ m }(m = 4) (1)
The number of sequences in each subset is given by n_{ ξ }; thus the total number of sequence, $N={\displaystyle {\sum}_{\xi =1}^{m}{n}_{\xi}}$
Where ${x}_{k,1}^{\xi},{x}_{k,2}^{\xi}\mathrm{......}{x}_{k,20}^{\xi}$ are the normalized occurrence frequencies of 20 residues for the k^{th} protein ${X}_{k}^{\xi}$ in the subset S_{ ξ }, and T stands for the transpose symbol.
Since Chou's great contribution, many methods that are based on residue composition were proposed. The norder component coupled method was one of them. When n = 0, this algorithm degenerated to the amino acid composition (AAC) method. In the case when n = 1, the corresponding indices can be expressed in terms of a 20 × 20 conditional probability matrix [20]. And if n > 1, the norder component coupled components can be expressed in terms of a multidimensional conditional probability matrix. In those residuecompositionbased methods, the size of statistics samples must be largely enough. However, the present statistical approach requires to calculate the probability of 20 amino acids or the conditional probability for one sequence. In this way, the conditional probabilities, especially the highorder coupled components, can not be calculated accurately since the length of each protein sequence is not long enough. For any n = 0 coupled component, the influence of amino acid that nearby was not considered. With the increase of n, the longterm interaction between the residues at different positions in a same sequence can be reflected; which it is of computational complexity.
In order to solve these problems mentioned above, a new method with an innovative index is proposed in this paper, which can be summarized as follows:
where ${l}_{k}^{\xi}$ is the size of k^{th} sequence length for the subset S_{ ξ }, and the other parameters remain the same definitions as in Equation 4.
According to the theory of the probability multiplication:
P_{ d }(a_{ i }/a_{ j }) = P_{ d }(a_{ i }, a_{ j })/P_{ d }(a_{ j }) (7)
In Equation 7, P_{ d }(a_{ i }, a_{ j }) and P_{ d }(a_{ j }) can be easily computed from protein sequences, and the conditional probability P_{ d }(a_{ i }/a_{ j }) can also be calculated.
For the case that d + j exceeds the length of the sequence, the cyclic boundary condition can be used. The residue at which its position is equal to the remainder of d + j and the length of sequence can be considered.
The third step is to determine the indexation of the conditional probability matrix for prediction. The information content of conditional probability is used as the quantification index. For each residue (a_{ j }) in an undetermined sequence, the index of the dinterval can be calculated as:
I_{ d }(a_{ j }) = log P_{ d }(a_{ i }/a_{ j }), (j = 1, 2,......l) (8)
In this natural logarithm expression, l is the length of sequence k. For all the residues in the sequence k, the total information content can be obtained by
I_{ d }= I_{ d }(a_{1}) + I_{ d }(a_{2}) + ...... + I_{ d }(a_{ l }) (9)
To consider multiresidue effects on some amino acids, the information contents with different distances can be accumulated to form the whole information contents, I_{ w }, i.e.,
I_{ w }= I_{ a }+ I_{a+1}+ ... + I_{ b }(a, b = 0, 1,...l, b ≥ a) (10)
where PD is the predicted result.
Dataset and results
Dataset
In order to comprehensively perform our statistical studies, the latest version (version 1.71 updated on 24 January 2007) of the database SCOP [21] was used. Four classes' sequences – including 1267 in α class, 1424 in β class, 1682 in α/β class and 1551 in α+β class – with the similarity less than 30% were selected (the reason why using this dataset will be explained in discussion part in detail). After removing the uncertainty sequences that contain the letter x in sequence, the total numbers are 1250, 1375, 1565 and 1524, respectively (see additional files 1 and 2). According to the crossvalidation principle, a whole sequence was divided into two subsets, randomly. The training and prediction sets were nonhomologous and we selected a number that is large enough for training and test (about 20 times more than the size of dataset used in [9]).
Results
To test the feasibility, verification, and applicability of our index and method, the crossvalidation [22] method was used in our study. The total sequences including 4 classes were randomly divided into 2 datasets, i.e., the training and the prediction datasets. The training dataset contains 2856 sequences, and the prediction dataset contains 2858 sequences.
Two traditional indices, AAC and ACF mentioned above, were used to compare with the results from our method. Three methods, mainly, the Hamming distance algorithm (DH), the Euclidean distance algorithm (DE) and the component coupled algorithm (CC), were used to assess the indices.
Training dataset using AAC index
Method  α class  β class  α/β class  α+β class  Overall 

DH(%)  61.44  59.39  46.42  25.46  47.23 
DE(%)  65.12  60.99  49.23  26.38  49.44 
CC(%)  91.68  68.12  45.52  23.10  55.07 
Prediction dataset using AAC index
Method  α class  β class  α/β class  α+β class  Overall 

DH(%)  61.76  60.32  46.36  25.33  47.48 
DE(%)  65.76  61.19  48.91  27.17  49.76 
CC(%)  89.92  64.97  42.71  19.29  52.13 
Training dataset using Kyte and Doolittle ACF index
Method  α class  β class  α/β class  α+β class  Overall 

DH(%)  57.60  65.50  41.18  23.10  45.80 
DE(%)  61.28  69.14  46.04  24.15  49.09 
Prediction dataset using Kyte and Doolittle ACF index
Method  α class  β class  α/β class  α+β class  Overall 

DH(%)  59.20  62.35  38.06  23.88  44.75 
DE(%)  61.92  68.60  42.78  22.57  47.80 
Training and prediction dataset using our index*
Dataset  α class  β class  α/β class  α+β class  Overall 

Training (%)  78.24  71.18  63.81  49.87  65.02 
Prediction (%)  70.08  63.23  57.34  34.51  55.46 
Discussion
We will discuss the dataset, since it is the most important part in evaluating different indices and methods. People usually use the frequentlyused dataset which includes several hundred sequences [10]. It is not relatively reliable enough, relevant to a given dataset scale. Another critical issue is the high sequence similarity. Let's take the 277 dataset [10] as an example. The 277 contains 277 protein domains extracted from the SCOP database.
The remarkable pairwise similarity can be found in each class after multiple sequence alignment is conducted. For instance, in an alpha class, we found that there are several groups of identical sequences; the biggest one contains about 20 sequences (see additional files 1 and 2). After we conducted pairwise alignment among these 20 sequences, we found that the sequence similarity was over 85%; indicating that these sequences are very identical to each other. The finding happens when we used other 3 classes. Such a high sequence similarity existed in the both training and test datasets; certainly violating the principle of cross validation. Therefore, we suspended such dataset for a reliable result.
In order to clearly emphasize the importance of selected dataset, we compared the three above methods from two different datasets. The amino acid composition index was used in this comparison study. The resubstitution and cross validation tests were designed and implemented for feature evaluations.
The 138 dataset with resubstitution test^{1}
Class  Alpha  Beta  Alpha/beta  Alph+beta  total 

DH hit number  23  20  19  14  76 
DE hit number  24  18  17  16  75 
CC hit number  36  26  26  40  128 
Class number  36  28  31  41  136 
DH accuracy(%)  63.89  71.43  61.29  34.15  55.88 
DE accuracy(%)  66.67  64.29  54.84  39.02  55.15 
CC^{2} accuracy(%)  100  92.86  83.87  97.56  94.12 
The 138 dataset with jackknife test.
Class  Alpha  Beta  Alpha/beta  Alph+beta  total 

DH hit number  21  17  14  11  63 
DE hit number  21  15  14  13  63 
CC hit number  23  15  10  33  81 
Class number  36  28  31  41  136 
DH accuracy (%)  58.33  60.71  45.16  26.83  46.32 
DE accuracy (%)  58.33  53.57  45.16  31.71  46.32 
CC accuracy (%)  63.89  53.57  32.26  80.49  59.56 
The 2856 dataset with resubstitution test
Class  Alpha  Beta  Alpha/beta  Alph+beta  total 

DH hit number  384  408  363  194  1349 
DE hit number  407  419  385  201  1412 
CC hit number  573  468  356  176  1573 
Class number  625  687  782  762  2856 
DH accuracy(%)  61.44  59.39  46.42  25.46  47.23 
DE accuracy(%)  65.12  60.99  49.23  26.38  49.44 
CC accuracy(%)  91.68  68.12  45.52  23.10  55.07 
the 2858 dataset with cross validation test*
Class  Alpha  Beta  Alpha/beta  Alph+beta  total 

DH hit number  386  415  363  193  1357 
DE hit number  411  421  383  207  1422 
CC hit number  562  447  334  147  1490 
Class number  625  688  783  762  2858 
DH accuracy(%)  61.76  60.32  46.36  25.33  47.48 
DE accuracy(%)  65.76  61.19  48.91  27.17  49.76 
CC accuracy(%)  89.92  64.97  42.71  19.29  52.13 
From Table 6 and 7, one can find that the prediction accuracy is very high for all three methods. This is because that the 138 dataset, just like the 277 dataset, is homologous, which means some sequences are almost the same. We can also find an interesting phenomenon that the accuracy of DH and DE are relatively higher in a cross validation test than that is in resubstitution test. It is mainly because these methods are insensitive to dataset, which means that there is a good extrapolating property in these algorithms. Comparing with CC and SVM, the total accuracy of our method is much better. However, like many advanced methods, the accuracies of resubstitution and cross validation tests are significantly different.
Traditional methods are usually based on simple criterions, while newdeveloped algorithms have more complicated rules. More prior probability information made current methods more accurate. However, this information must strongly rely on dataset. Fortunately, with an increased number of parsedsequences, scientists can solve this problem commendably.
Generally speaking, using three above methods, the accuracy of dataset 5714 is much lower than one of the dataset 138. The 138 dataset is unreliable due to its high sequence similarity. However, in crossvalidation test, the accuracy of DH and DE in 5714 dataset is much higher than that in 138 dataset. This illuminates that with an increase of dataset scale, one can improve the extrapolation of algorithms remarkablely.
From Table 1, 2, 3 and 4, we found that the accuracy is obviously decreased, compared with the result mentioned before. This is mainly because that the dataset we used are now larger and much different from the one used before. Therefore, the traditional methods had to be improved with an increase of sample size.
Table 1, 2, 3 and 4 also tell us that the difference of accuracy between the training and the prediction datasets is quite small. Therefore, the generalization of these methods is pretty good. It is because there are very few restriction conditions and technical manipulations in traditional methods that avoid a fluctuation between the training and test results by some techniques.
Using our method, the accuracy is between 6% and 16% higher than in the traditional methods. This is because longterm concepts are introduced and the conditional probability is used instead of physiochemical indices; thus to avoid the errors influenced by other parameters. In our test, distance (d) value is between 2 and 4, the accuracy is high. This phenomenon is a good accordance with the frequency characteristics of proteins. As we all know, most alpha helices are 3.6 residues per cycle, which means that a hydrogen bond bridges current residue and the residue 3 or 4 positions behind. Most beta strands have 2 residues per strand cycle, which reflects a strong interaction between two residues in a 2position interval.
The advantage of our method can be concluded into three aspects:

In our method, the longterm correlation factor is considered without any other physiochemical parameters.

The accuracy is significantly improved for about 6–16% comparing with two traditional indices.

The merits in both two traditional methods are inherited. That is, the residue composition frequency and the amino acid arrangement.
However, there still exit some problems, which motivate our future study.

In our method, we must calculate the correlation between d residues. For the situation that the residue position is near the end of a sequence, the residue d sites behind may exceed the length of the sequence. In such case, the boundary process is crucial to the final result. For convenience, the cyclic boundary condition is used hereby. However, such approach is not biologically significant, and it is not quite reliable. To solve this problem, we are planning to test different types of extended boundary conditions.

The presented method only calculate the correlation between certain residue and the residue d positions behind. This is a "oneside" statistical work, and the information can not be extracted enough. The calculation of the correlation between the target residue and the residues different sites before and after is necessary to solve the problem.
Conclusion
In this paper, a new method by new indices is proposed. A reliable dataset with large number of entries and low sequence similarity is used to train and test our algorithm. The result showed that our method has a higher accuracy than the ones in traditional methods. The application of conditional probability and information content shows that the protein structural prediction can be largely improved by combining the information theory with the probability theory.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This article has been published as part of BMC Bioinformatics Volume 9 Supplement 6, 2008: Symposium of Computations in Bioinformatics and Bioscience (SCBB07). The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712105/9?issue=S6.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Levitt M, Chothia C: Structural patterns in globular proteins. Nature. 1976, 261: 552557. 10.1038/261552a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Shen HB, Yang J, Liu XJ, Chou KC: Using supervised fuzzy clustering to predict protein structural classes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005, 334: 577581. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.06.128.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Chou KC, Cai YD: Predicting protein structural class byfunctional domain composition. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004, 321 (4): 10071009. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.07.059.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Feng KY, Cai YD, Chou KC: Boosting classifier for predicting protein domain structural class. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005, 334 (1): 213217. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.06.075.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Zhou GP: An intriguing controversy over protein structural class prediction. J Protein Chem. 1998, 17 (8): 729738. 10.1023/A:1020713915365.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Chou KC: Progress in protein structural class prediction and its impact to bioinformatics and proteomics. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2005, 6 (5): 423436. 10.2174/138920305774329368.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Cai Y, Zhou G: Prediction of protein structural classes by neural network. Biochimie. 2000, 82 (8): 783785. 10.1016/S03009084(00)011615.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nishkawa K, Ooi T: Correlation of the amino acid composition of a protein to its structural and biological characters. J Biochem. 1982, 91: 18211824.Google Scholar
 Chou KC, Zhang CT: Prediction of protein structural classes. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 1995, 30: 275349. 10.3109/10409239509083488.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Chou KC, Maggiora GM: Domain structural class prediction. Protein Eng. 1998, 11: 523538. 10.1093/protein/11.7.523.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM: Multivariate Analysis. 1979, Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
 Nakashima H, Nishikawa K, Ooi T: The folding type of a protein is relevant to the amino acid composition. J Biochem. 1986, 99: 153162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Chou KC: A novel approach to predicting protein structural classes in a (201)D amino acid composition space. Proteins. 1995, 21: 319344. 10.1002/prot.340210406.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wang ZX, Yuan Z: How good is prediction of protein structural class by the component – coupled method. Proteins. 2000, 38: 165175. 10.1002/(SICI)10970134(20000201)38:2<165::AIDPROT5>3.0.CO;2V.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Zhou GP, AssaMunt N: Some insights into protein structural class prediction. Proteins. 2001, 44 (1): 5759. 10.1002/prot.1071.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Cai YD, Liu XJ, Xu XB: Support vector machines for predicting protein structural class. BMC Bioinformatics. 2001, 2: 310.1186/1471210523.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Luo RY, Feng ZP, Liu JK: Prediction of protein structural class by amino acid and ploypeptide composition. Eur J Biochem. 2002, 269: 42194225. 10.1046/j.14321033.2002.03115.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Du QS, Jiang ZQ, He WZ, Li DP, Chou KC: Amino acid principal component analysis (AAPCA) and its application in protein structural class prediction. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2006, 23: 635640.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bu WS, Feng ZP, Zhang ZD, Zhang CT: Prediction of protein (domain) structural classes based on aminoacid index. Eur J Biochem. 1999, 266: 10431049. 10.1046/j.14321327.1999.00947.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Liu WM, Chou KC: Prediction of protein secondary structure content. Protein Eng. 1999, 12: 10411050. 10.1093/protein/12.12.1041.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C: SCOP: a structural classification of protein database for the investigation of sequence and structures. J Mol Biol. 1995, 247: 536540. 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Chou KC: Prediction of protein structural classes and subcellular locations. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2000, 1: 171208. 10.2174/1389203003381379.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kyte J, Doolittle RF: A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. J Mol Biol. 1982, 157: 105132. 10.1016/00222836(82)905150.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.