Structure-derived potentials and protein simulations

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 195-209

  Jernigan, Robert L ^a   Bahar, Ivet ^a,b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^b BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MOLECULAR MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW;

EID: 0029942661     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-440X(96)80075-3     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Levitt M: A simplified representation of protein conformations for rapid simulation of protein folding. J Mol Biol 1976, 104:59-107.
2. Jernigan RL: Protein folds. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1992, 2:248-256.
3. Tanaka S, Scheraga HA: Medium- and long-range interaction parameters between amino acids for predicting three-dimensional structures of proteins. Macromolecules 1976, 9:945-950.
4. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL: Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation. Macromolecules 1985, 18:534-552.
5. Lüthy R, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D: An assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Nature 1992, 356:83-85.
6. Sippl MJ: Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1990, 213:859-883.
7. Crippen GM, Maiorov VN: Contact potential for global identification of correct protein folding. In The Protein Folding Problem and Tertiary Structure Prediction. Edited by Merz KM Jr, Le Grand SM. Boston: Birkauser; 1994:231-277.
8. Bowie JU, Lüthy R, Eisenberg D: A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known 3-dimensional structure. Science 1991, 253:164-170.
9. Hendlich M, Lackner P, Weitckus S, Floeckner H, Froschauer R, Gottsbacher K, Casari G, Sippl MJ: Identification of native protein folds amongst a large number of incorrect models. The calculation of low energy conformations from potentials of mean force. J Mol Biol 1990, 216:167-180.
10. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM: A new approach to protein fold recognition. Nature 1992, 358:86-89.
11. Casari G, Sippl MJ: Structure-derived hydrophobic potential. Hydrophobic potential derived from X-ray structures of globular proteins is able to identify native folds. J Mol Biol 1992, 224:725-732.
12. Sun S, Luo N, Ornstein R, Rein R: Protein structure prediction based on statistical potential. Biophys J 1992, 62:104-106.
13. Sun S: Reduced representation model of protein structure prediction: statistical potential and genetic algorithms. Protein Sci 1993, 2:762-785.
14. Willmans M, Eisenberg D: Three-dimensional preferences from residue-pair preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993, 90:1379-1383.
15. Nishikawa K, Matsuo Y: Development of pseudoenergy potentials for assessing protein 3D-1D compatibility and detecting weak homologies. Protein Eng 1993, 6:811-820.
16. Bryant SH, Lawrence CE: An empirical energy function for threading protein sequence through the folding motif. Proteins 1993, 16:92-112.
17. Brauer A, Beyer A: An improved pair potential to recognize native protein folds. Proteins 1994, 18:254-261.
18. Bowie JU, Eisenberg D: An evolutionary approach to the folding of small α-helical proteins from sequence information using an empirical, guiding fitness function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994, 91:4436-4440. This work selects fragments on the basis of their sequence compatibilities and then links them to form hundreds of starting structures that are then put through an evolutionary algorithm. This consists of random changes in conformation as well as cutting and pasting (recombination) for choices of segments. Success in finding native small helical proteins at 2.5-4.0 Å rms deviations is reported.
19. Berger B, Wilson DB, Wolf E, Tonchev T, Milla M, Kim PS: Predicting coiled coils by use of pairwise residue correlations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995, 92:8259-8263.
20. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL: Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Biol 1996, 256:623-644. The procedures in [4], to derive residue-residue potentials from counting interactions in a set of protein structures, are applied to 1661 protein subunits. A useful weighting scheme based on sequence identities is presented. This yields values of interaction parameters nearly identical to old values, except in the cases of tryptophan, methionine and leucine. Also, an unfavorable residue-packing term is derived that depends on the number of neighbors around a central residue when the number exceeds a threshold value. The application of the potential to threading yields the correct native form for 73 of 89 representative proteins. A new reference state is developed which is appropriate for use of these types of residue-residue contact potentials in threading.
21. Flory PJ: Statistical Mechanics of Chain Molecules. Oxford: Hanser Publishers; 1988.
22. Mattice WL, Suter UW: Conformational Theory of Large Molecules. The Rotational Isomeric State Model in Macromolecular Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1994.
23. Novotny J, Bruccoleri RE, Karplus M: An analysis of incorrectly folded protein models. Implications for structure predictions. J Mol Biol 1984, 177:788-818.
24. Novotny J, Rashin AA, Bruccoleri RE: Criteria that discriminate between native proteins and incorrectly folded models. Proteins 1988, 4:19-30.
25. Wang Y, Zhang H, Li W, Scott RA: Discriminating compact non-native structures from the native structure of globular proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995, 92:709-713.
26. Shakhnovich El: Proteins with selected sequences fold into unique native conformation. Phys Rev Lett 1994, 72:3907-3990.
27. Šali A, Shakhnovich E, Karplus M: Kinetics of protein folding: a lattice model study of the requirements for folding to the native state. J Mol Biol 1994, 235:1614-1636. The presence of a large energy gap between the native and all higher-energy states is asserted to be the common attribute for correctly folding 27-mer sequences on a cubic lattice. A three step random search (3SRS) mechanism of protein folding is proposed that consists of rapid collapse from a random coil to a molten globule, followed by a slow, rate-determining step to find a transition state, and a final rapid folding into the native state.
28. Karplus M, Šali A: Theoretical studies of protein folding and unfolding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1995, 5:58-73. This review discusses the role of both simplified and all-atom models for the theoretical investigation of the mechanism of protein folding. Emphasis is placed on lattice simulations of short heteropolymers, which is asserted to be a useful approach for resolving the Levinthal paradox.
29. Huang ES, Subbiah S, Tsai J, Levitt M: Using a hydrophobic contact potential to evaluate native and near-native folds generated by molecular dynamics simulations. J Mol Biol 1996, in press. This paper describes the testing of the authors' potential [92] against sets of conformations generated by molecular dynamics with water. Five small proteins without disulfide bridges, metals or other hetero-atom groups were tested. One thousand backbone forms were generated at 298K and 498K. Hydrophobic fitness is evaluated for each, based on burial and the number of non-polar contacts compared to random. Two considerations were used: near-native structures should have energies intermediate between the native forms and badly folded forms, and there should be a monotonic increase in energy with increase in the rms away from the native form. For the low temperature samples, more of the non-native 1000 conformers were below the native than at 498K or for threading. Overall greater rms deviations corresponded to less favorable cores but not in every case. The authors claim to be able to clearly discriminate as bad conformations that deviate by >∼4 Å.
30. Bernstein F, Koetzle T, Williams G, Meyer E, Brice M, Rodgers J, Kennard O, Shimanouchi T, Tasumi M: The protein databank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol 1977, 112:535-542.
31. Abola EE, Bernstein FC, Bryant SH, Koetzle TF, Weng J: Protein Databank. In Crystallographic Databases - Information Content Software Systems, Scientific Applications. Edited by Allen FH, Bergerhoff G, Sievers R. Bonn: Data Commission of the International Union of Crystallography; 1987:107.
32. Hobohm U, Sander C: Enlarged representative set of protein structures. Protein Sci 1994, 3:522-524.
33. Jernigan RL, Young L, Covell DG, Miyazawa S: Applications of empirical amino acid potential functions. In Modelling of Biomolecular Structures and Mechanisms. Edited by Pullman A et al. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995:151-166.
34. Covell DG, Jernigan RL: Conformations of folded proteins in restricted spaces. Biochemistry 1990, 29:3287-3294.
35. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL: A new substitution matrix for protein sequence searches based on contact frequencies in protein structures. Protein Eng 1993, 6:267-278.
36. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL: Protein stability for single substitution mutants and the extent of local compactness in the denatured state. Protein Eng 1994, 7:1209-1220.
37. Altuvia Y, Schueler O, Margalit H: Ranking potential binding peptides to MHC molecules by a computational threading approach. J Mol Biol 1995, 249:244-250.
38. Wallqvist A, Jernigan RL, Covell DG: A preference-based free energy parameterization of enzyme-inhibitor binding. Applications to HIV-1-protease inhibitor design. Protein Sci 1995, 4:1881-1903. Surface interactions in a set of 38 crystal structures of complexes are analyzed. In a surface area formulation of interaction energies, preferences between atom pairs across the intermolecular boundary are derived. Results give a quantitative evaluation of the relative importance of hydrogen bonding, charge pairs, and hydrophobic pairs. The latter are weaker than the first two, but there is an interesting appearance of segregation between aromatic and aliphatic carbons.
39. Kurochkina N, Lee B: Hydrophobic potential by pairwise surface area sum. Protein Eng 1995, 8:437-442.
40. Godzik A, Kolinski A, Skolnick J: Are proteins ideal mixtures of amino acids? Analysis of energy parameter sets. Protein Sci 1995, 4:2107-2117. This is a serious and useful comparison of several different residue-residue potential functions. A new version of those originally derived in reference [49] is presented. The authors point out that the functions can be divided into two major classes, depending on whether the reference state is the unfolded or the compact state. They make an interesting comparison between their individual interaction parameters derived from high-resolution and low-resolution X-ray structures and find a surprisingly high correlation of 0.91. However, a comparison between energy parameters derived from NMR structures and from high-resolution X-ray-derived structures gives a correlation of only 0.46. A related finding for NMR structures is given in [20••] where the total protein stability of X-ray-derived structures is found to be consistently lower than those of NMR-derived structures with X-ray-based functions. Does this mean that solution and crystal structures are different in the strengths of their internal interactions? And does it imply that NMR structures require different interaction potentials?
41. Sippl MJ: Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1995, 5:229-235.
42. Thomas PD, Dill K: Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: what is wrong with them? J Mol Biol 1996, in press. The authors apply the Miyazawa and Jernigan scheme [4] to a set of conformations generated on lattices for short chains with simple contact potentials, with the result that for the longer chains they could almost retrieve the starting contacts that were used as input. They also apply the Sippl procedure to extract distance-dependent functions. These results appear to reflect the overall characteristics of the folded forms: the positions of the minima are at the closest distance for H-H pairs, at intermediate values of distance for H-P pairs and furthest apart for P-P pairs, reflecting the overall size and globular nature of the conformations.
43. AB works best and using smoothing functions with distance dependence, such as that of Wallqvist and Ullner.
44. Kocher J-PA, Rooman MJ, Wodak S: Factors influencing the ability of knowledge-based potentials to identify native sequence-structure matches. J Mol Biol 1994, 235:1598-1613. This is an excellent review on the use of knowledge-based potentials for structure-sequence recognition. It emphasizes the importance of combining short-range and long-range interactions on the basis of different structural descriptions and questions the use of threading experiments as a test for evaluating the quality of potentials.
45. Maiorov VN, Crippen GM: Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1992, 227:876-888.
46. Wang Y, Lai L, Han Y, Xu X, Tang Y: A new protein folding recognition potential function. Proteins 1995, 21:127-129.
47. Flockner H, Braxenthaler M, Lackner P, Jaritz M, Ortner M, Sippl M: Progress in fold recognition. Proteins 1995, 23:376-386.
48. Hinds DA, Levitt M: From structure to sequence and back again. J Mol Biol 1996, in press.
49. Hellinga HW, Richards FM: Optimal sequence selection in proteins of known structure by simulated evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994, 91:5803-5807.
50. Brant DA, Miller WG, Flory PJ: Conformational energy estimates for statistically coiling polypeptide chains. J Mol Biol 1967, 23:47-65.
51. Levitt M, Warshel A: Computer simulation of protein folding. Nature 1975, 253:694-698.
52. Godzik A, Skolnick J: Sequence-structure matching in globular proteins. Applications to supersecondary and tertiary structure determination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992, 89: 98-102.
53. Bryngelson JD, Onuchic JN, Socci ND, Wolynes PG: Funnels, pathways, and energy landscape of protein folding: a synthesis. Proteins 1995, 21:167-195.
54. Vieth M, Kolinski A, Brooks CL, Skolnick J: Prediction of quaternary structure of coiled coils. Application to mutants of the GCN4 leucine zipper. J Mol Biol 1995, 251:448-467.
55. Hinds DA, Levitt M: Exploring conformational space with a simple lattice model for protein structure. J Mol Biol 1994, 243:668-682. The authors develop a highly simplified representation of proteins on a bounded diamond lattice. The representation allows all conformations to be generated for small proteins. Selectivity for native folds is reduced when a shuffled sequence is tested. The importance of forming a core in establishing a proteins' overall chain fold is pointed out, as well as the need for a low-resolution model tailored to the structural features commonly found in proteins.
56. Wallqvist A, Ullner M: A simplified amino acid potential for use in structure predictions of proteins. Proteins 1994, 18:267-280.
57. Dill KA, Bromberg S, Yue K, Fiebig KM, Yee DP, Thomas PD, Chan HS: Principles of protein folding. A perspective from simple exact models. Protein Sci 1995, 4:561-602.
58. Bromberg S, Dill KA: Side-chain entropy and packing in proteins. Protein Sci 1994, 3:997-1009.
59. Šali A, Shakhnovich E, Karplus M: How does a protein fold? Nature 1994, 369:248-251. The importance of a pronounced global minimum is demonstrated with lattice calculations.
60. Bahar I, Jernigan RL: Cooperative structural transitions induced by non-homogeneous intramolecular interactions in compact globular proteins. Biophys J 1994, 66:467-477.
61. Bahar I, Jernigan RL: Stabilization of intermediate density states in globular proteins by homogeneous intramolecular attractive interactions. Biophys J 1994, 66:454-466.
62. Chan HS, Dill KA: Transition states and folding dynamics of proteins and heteropolymers. J Chem Phys 1994, 100:9238-9257.
63. Socci ND, Onuchic JN: Folding kinetics of protein-like heteropolymers. J Chem Phys 1994, 100:1519-1528.
64. Yue K, Fiebig KM, Thomas PD, Chan HS, Shakhnovich EI, Dill KA: A test of lattice protein folding algorithms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995, 92:146-150.
65. Fiebig KM, Dill KA: Protein core assembly processes. J Chem Phys 1993, 98:3475-3487.
66. Yue K, Dill KA: Forces of tertiary structural organization of globular proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995, 92:146-150.
67. Park BH, Levitt M: The complexity and accuracy of discrete state models of protein structure. J Mol Biol 1995, 249:493-507. This paper constitutes a thorough analysis of the degree of accuracy one can achieve with on- or off-lattice models of varying complexity. Low complexity off-lattice models, having, for example, six accessible states per residue, are argued to be more appropriate for protein structure prediction than higher complexity on-lattice models. An optimized set of four-state models is presented, which fits native structures to an average of 2.4 Å and may preserve 85% of the native contacts occurring between residues located at a distance 8 Å from each other.
68. Vieth M, Kolinski A, Brooks CL, Skolnick J: Prediction of the folding pathways and structure of GCN4 leucine zipper. J Mol Biol 1994, 237:361-367.
69. Gunn JR, Monge A, Friesner RA: Hierarchical algorithm for computer modeling of protein tertiary structure: folding of myoglobin to 6.2 Å resolution. J Phys Chem 1994, 98:702-711.
70. Monge A, Friesner RA, Honig B: An algorithm to generate low-resolution protein tertiary structures from knowledge of secondary structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994, 91:5027-5029.
71. Monge A, Lathrop EJ, Gunn JR, Shenkin PS, Friesner RA: Computer modeling of protein folding: conformational and energetic analysis of reduced and detailed protein models. J Mol Biol 1995, 247:995-1012.
72. Vriend G, Sander C: Quality control of protein models: directional atomic contact analysis. J Appl Crystallogr 1993, 26:47-60.
73. Delarue M, Koehl P: Atomic environment energies in proteins defined from statistics of accessible and contact surface areas. J Mol Biol 1995, 249:675-690.
74. Wang Y, Zhang H, Scott RA: A new computational model for protein folding based on atomic solvation. Protein Sci 1995, 4:1402-1411.
75. Covell DG: Folding protein α-carbon chains into compact forms by Monte Carlo methods. Proteins 1992, 14:409-420.
76. Covell DG: Lattice model simulation of polypeptide chain folding. J Mol Biol 1994, 235:1032-1043.
77. Kolinski A, Skolnick J: Monte Carlo simulation of protein folding. I. Lattice model and interaction scheme. Proteins 1994, 18:338-352. This paper describes a hierarchical lattice method that applies Monte Carlo lattice dynamics with a complex potential function. First stage procedures give 4-5 Å rms fits of all heavy atoms. Subsequent refinement with a more highly articulated lattice improves the fits.
78. Kolinski A, Skolnick J: Monte Carlo simulation of protein folding. II. Application to protein A, ROP and crambin. Proteins 1994, 18:353-366. This paper constitutes the application of the method in [77•] to three small proteins. The authors find results with rms values of 2.25-3.65 Å.
79. Srinivasan R, Rose GD: LINUS: A hierarchic procedure to predict the fold of a protein. Proteins 1995, 22:81-99.
80. Ptitsyn OB, Rashin AA: A model of myoglobin self-organization. Biophys Chem 1975, 3:1-20.
81. DeWitte RS, Shakhnovich EI: Pseudodihedrals: simplified protein backbone representation with knowledge-based energy. Protein Sci 1994, 2:1570-1581.
82. Ben-Naim A: Statistical Thermodynamics for Chemists and Biochemists. New York: Plenum Press; 1992.
83. Rooman MJ, Kocher J-PA, Wodak SJ: Prediction of protein backbone conformation based on seven structure assignments. Influence of local interactions. J Mol Biol 1991, 221:961-979.
84. Laiter S, Hoffman DL, Singh RK, Vaisman II, Tropsha A: Pseudotorsional OCCO backbone angle as a single descriptor of protein secondary structure. Protein Sci 1995, 4:1633-1643.
85. Minor DL Jr, Kim PS: Context is a major determinant of β-sheet propensity. Nature 1994, 371:264-267.
86. Hunt NG, Gregoret LM, Cohen FE: The origins of protein secondary structure. Effects of packing density and hydrogen bonding studied by a fast conformational search. J Mol Biol 1994, 241:214-225. This is an investigation of the importance of compactness and hydrogen bonds in stabilizing secondary structures. The authors use an energy function that is a simple combination of two terms and apply a simulated annealing minimization scheme. Compactness alone yields less than 20% of the expected amount of secondary structure. Hydrogen bonding alone gives between 66% and 90% of the expected secondary structure, depending on the definition of secondary structures. Favoring both hydrogen bonds and compactness gives nearly the experimental range of secondary structures.
87. Singh J, Thornton JM: SIRIUS. An automated method of analysis of preferred packing arrangements between protein groups. J Mol Biol 1990, 211:595-615.
88. Singh J, Thornton JM: Atlas of protein side-chain interactions, vols 1,2. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992.
89. Ponder JW, Richards FM: Tertiary templates for proteins. Use of packing criteria in the enumeration of allowed sequences for different structural classes. J Mol Biol 1987, 193:775-791.
90. Lumb KJ, Kim PS: A buried polar interaction imparts structural uniqueness in a designed heterodimeric coiled coil. Biochemistry 1995, 34:8642-8648. On the basis of experimental observations (circular dichroism, hydrogen exchange NMR, fluorescence) on designed multimeric coiled coils, the important role of specific interactions between buried polar groups in imparting structural uniqueness, at the possible expense of stability is pointed out. A single interaction between a pair of asparagines belonging to the respective monomers of a designed hetero-dimeric coiled coil was responsible for the formation of a unique structure. Variants obtained by substituting leucine for Asn14 are shown to lack structural uniqueness in spite of their higher stability and ability to form heterotetramers.
91. Lustig B, Jernigan RL: Consistencies of individual DNA base-amino acid interactions in structures and sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 1995, 23:4707-4711. This is an attempt to extract interaction strengths between amino acids and DNA bases from non-structural data. Amino acid-base interaction strengths from combinatorial library binding studies on zinc fingers are compared with separate binding studies of several DNA-binding proteins. These are correlated and indicate the same strongest binding pairs. Operator DNA sequence frequencies are also analyzed together with known repressor structures to find relative strengths.
92. Huang ES, Subbiah S, Levitt M: Recognizing native folds by the arrangement of hydrophobic and polar residues. J Mol Biol 1995, 252:709-720.