Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2023.05.05.539526

A Comparative Study of Protein Structure Prediction Tools for Challenging Targets: Snake Venom Toxins

Abstract

Protein structure determination is a critical aspect of biological research, enabling us to understand protein function and potential applications. Recent advances in deep learning and artificial intelligence have led to the development of several protein structure prediction tools, such as AlphaFold2 and ColabFold. However, their performance has primarily been evaluated on well-characterised proteins, and comparisons using proteins with poor reference templates are lacking. In this study, we evaluated three modelling tools on their prediction of over 1000 snake venom toxin structures with no reference templates. Our findings show that AlphaFold2 (AF2) performed the best across all assessed parameters. We also observed that ColabFold (CF) only scored slightly worse than AF2, while being computationally less intensive. All tools struggled with regions of intrinsic disorder, such as loops and propeptide regions, and performed well in predicting the structure of functional domains. Overall, our study highlights the importance of exercising caution when working with proteins that have poor reference templates, are large, and contain flexible regions. Nonetheless, leveraging computational structure prediction tools can provide valuable insights into the modelling of protein interactions with different targets and reveal potential binding sites, active sites, and conformational changes, as well as into the design of potential molecular binders for reagent, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. StatementRecent advances in machine learning have led to the development of new protein structure prediction tools. However, these tools have mainly been tested on well-known proteins and their performance on proteins without known templates is unclear. This study evaluated the performance of three tools on over 1000 snake venom toxins. We found that while caution is required when studying poorly characterised proteins, these tools offer valuable opportunities to understand protein function and applications.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kalogeropoulos, K., Bohn, M.-F., Jenkins, D. E., Ledergerber, J., Soerensen, C. V., Hofmann, N., Wade, J., Fryer, T. J., Nguyen, G. T. T., auf dem Keller, U., Laustsen, A. H., Jenkins, T. P.. 2023-05-07. A Comparative Study of Protein Structure Prediction Tools for Challenging Targets: Snake Venom Toxins. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.05.539526

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Accelerating discovery and integration from RNA to Protein with R2T2P

Integrating transcriptomics and proteomics data remains an unmet challenge in the post-genomics era, discouraging researchers from pursuing integrative approaches to molecular biology research. Leveraging the power of translation profiling, we present RNA to Translation to Protein (R2T2P), a computational platform integrating genome-guided transcriptome assembly with identification of translation and proteins, including a tailored differential analysis framework and support for multiple reference transcriptomes. We applied R2T2P to investigate a cellular model of facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD), where ectopic expression of the DUX4 retrogene in skeletal muscle triggers significant alterations in transcription and RNA metabolism. We uncovered hundreds of uncharacterized, highly overexpressed RNAs, including antisense and alternative transcripts, and quantified their contribution to translatome and proteome. Re-analysis of expression datasets from patient-derived myotubes and muscle biopsies validated this alternative transcriptome in FSHD patients, adding a reservoir of bona-fide novel molecular actors in a rare disease. Available at https://github.com/nfdata-omics/R2T2P/, R2T2P is a flexible and powerful workflow in modern integrative biology.

bioinformatics↗

MorphoANOVA: Dissecting Histology-Gene Expression Relationships in Spatial Transcriptomics

Spatial transcriptomics (ST) measures the expression of hundreds to thousands of genes within tissue architecture, often accompanied by histology images. However, it remains challenging to systematically characterize which genes exhibit associations with tissue morphology, whether these associations vary spatially, and which genes show additional spatial expression patterns beyond those captured by morphology. Here we introduce MorphoANOVA, a gene-wise statistical framework for characterizing morphology--expression relationships across genes measured by ST. Using nested spatially varying coefficient models and sequential ANOVA, MorphoANOVA assesses slide-wide associations with an H\&E-derived morphology feature, location-specific changes in these associations, and additional spatial variation after accounting for the selected feature. The resulting statistics enable gene prioritization and pathway enrichment analysis, while spatial component maps support the interpretation of individual genes. Simulations demonstrate MorphoANOVA's ability to distinguish the modeled components and recover their spatial patterns. Applications to human cortex and breast cancer identify biological programs associated with different morphology--expression patterns and reveal distinct relationships with cell composition. Across three HER2-positive breast cancer patients, invasive-cancer marker genes consistently exhibit stronger evidence of location-specific morphology associations. MorphoANOVA thus provides a framework for systematically interpreting spatial gene-expression patterns in relation to tissue morphology.

bioinformatics↗

Evaluation effects can rival reported concordance gains in cross-cancer survival prediction

Studies of cross-cancer learning for survival prediction from tumour omics have reported concordance gains of 0.020 and 0.045, but how such gains compare with evaluation effects remains unclear. We examined these effects across 13 TCGA cancers (5,761 patients, 1,526 disease-specific deaths), using five repeats of five-fold cross-validation and paired bootstrap intervals. When model selection did not use test data, our borrowing model gained 0.009 (95% interval 0.001 to 0.016) over its target-fitted reference when cancers received equal weight (post hoc). Random-effects pooling gave a gain of 0.002 (-0.002 to 0.006), with most weight assigned to cancers where the model made little use of the pretrained score. Choosing the fusion weight on test splits raised the apparent equal-weight gain to 0.017. We reimplemented a published method, VAECox, which showed no pretraining gain over random initialisation at the last or validation-selected training step. Choosing each network's best test step, as the published code does, raised concordance by 0.03 to 0.05 across the 13-cancer and ten-cancer overall-survival settings, but barely changed the difference between networks. In a constructed post hoc experiment, choosing the best test step only for the pretrained network changed the equal-weight mean difference from -0.004 to +0.045 (+0.035 to +0.054). Across seven multi-omics comparisons, estimates from single five-fold runs differed from their cancer's five-run mean by at least 0.02 in 11% to 42% of runs. Concordance was about 0.02 lower at held-out tissue source sites. Interpreting a reported gain therefore requires each model's selection rule, variation across repeated partitions, the weighting of cancers and the evaluation population.

bioinformatics↗