Search

Computational identification of special protein molecules is a key issue in understanding protein function. It can guide molecular experiments and help to save costs. I assessed 18 papers published in the special issue of Int. J. Mol. Sci., and also discussed the related works. The computational methods employed in this special issue focused on machine learning, network analysis, and molecular docking. New methods and new topics were also proposed. There were in addition several wet experiments, with proven results showing promise. I hope our special issue will help in protein molecules identification researches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Molecular computing and bioinformatics are two important interdisciplinary sciences that study molecules and computers. Molecular computing is a branch of computing that uses DNA, biochemistry, and molecular biology hardware, instead of traditional silicon-based computer technologies. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments, and applications of molecular computing. The core advantage of molecular computing is its potential to pack vastly more circuitry onto a microchip than silicon will ever be capable of—and to do it cheaply. Molecules are only a few nanometers in size, making it possible to manufacture chips that contain billions—even trillions—of switches and components. To develop molecular computers, computer scientists must draw on expertise in subjects not usually associated with their field, including organic chemistry, molecular biology, bioengineering, and smart materials. Bioinformatics works on the contrary; bioinformatics researchers develop novel algorithms or software tools for computing or predicting the molecular structure or function. Molecular computing and bioinformatics pay attention to the same object, and have close relationships, but work toward different orientations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whereas the concept of intrinsic disorder derives from biophysical observations of the lack of structure of proteins or protein regions under native conditions, many of our respective concepts rest on proteome-scale bioinformatics predictions. It is established that most predictors work reliably on proteins commonly encountered, but it is often neglected that we know very little about their performance on proteins of microorganisms that thrive in environments of extreme temperature, pH, or salt concentration, which may cause adaptive sequence composition bias. To address this issue, we predicted structural disorder for the complete proteomes of different extremophile groups by popular prediction methods and compared them to those of the reference mesophilic group. While significant deviations from mesophiles could be explained by a lack or gain of disordered regions in hyperthermophiles and radiotolerants, respectively, we found systematic overprediction in the case of halophiles. Additionally, examples were collected from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) to demonstrate misprediction and to help understand the underlying biophysical principles, i.e., halophilic proteins maintain a highly acidic and hydrophilic surface to avoid aggregation in high salt conditions. Although sparseness of data on disordered proteins from extremophiles precludes the development of dedicated general predictors, we do formulate recommendations for how to address their disorder with current bioinformatics tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]