Figure 5 The CoBaltDB Prefilled post window The “”additional too

Figure 5 The CoBaltDB Prefilled post window. The “”additional tools”" panel enables web page submission for a set of 50 additional

tools by pre-filling selected forms with selected sequence and Gram information as appropriate. Finally, for each protein, all results were summarized in a synopsis (Figure 6); the synopsis presents the results generated MAPK inhibitor by all the tools in a unified manner, and includes a summary of all predicted cleavage sites and membrane domains. This “”standardized”" form thus provides all relevant information and lets the investigators establish their own hypotheses and conclusions. This form may be saved as a .pdf file (Figure 6). Examples of using the CoBaltDB synopsis are provided below in the second case study. Figure 6 CoBaltDB Synopsis. For any given protein, all results are summarized in a synopsis which presents, in a unified manner, a summary of all predicted cleavage sites and membrane domains. This synopsis can be stored as a .pdf file. Selected CoBaltDB uses We propose to illustrate briefly some selleck kinase inhibitor possible uses of CoBaltDB. 1-Using CoBaltDB to compare subcellular prediction tools and databases The various bioinformatic approaches

developed for computational determination of protein subcellular localization exhibit differences in sensitivity and specificity; these differences are mainly the consequences of the types of sequences used as training models (diderms, monoderms, Archaea) and of the methods applied (regular expressions, machine learning or others). By interfacing the results from most of the reliable predictions tools, CoBaltDB provides immediate comparisons

and constitutes an accurate and high-performance resource to identify and characterize candidate “”non-cytoplasmic”" proteins. As an example, using CoBaltDB to analyse the 82 proteins that compose the experimentally confirmed “”Lipoproteome”" of E. coli K-12 [97] shows that 72 are correctly predicted by the three precomputed tools (LipoP [59], DOLOP [57] and DOK2 LIPO [56]), and that the other 10 are only identified by two of the three tools (Additional file 4A). Eight of these lipoproteins were not detected by DOLOP, because the regular expression pattern allowing detection of the lipidation sequence ([LVI] [ASTVI] [GAS] [C] lipobox) is too stringent (Additional file 4B). By comparison, the PROSITE lipobox pattern (PS00013/PDOC00013) is more permissive ([DERK](6)- [LIVMFWSTAG] (2)- [LIVMFYSTAGCQ]- [AGS]-C). This example demonstrates that using a single tool may result in errors and suggests that the best approach is to combine the various “”features-based”" methods available and compare their findings. This view also applies to meta-tools predictors. E. coli K12 lipoproteins can be found anchored to the inner or the outer membrane through attached lipid, but some of them are periplasmic (Additional file 4A).

Comments are closed.