The current state of the art in protein structure prediction

Current Opinion in Biotechnology

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 422-427

  Moult, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MODEL; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; REVIEW;

EID: 0030220165     PISSN: 09581669     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0958-1669(96)80118-2     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. of outstanding interest Protein structure prediction: a special issue. Lattman EE. Proteins. 23:1995;295-460 This journal issue contains review articles by the three teams assessing the prediction experiment, and articles by the more successful predictors. Together, these papers provide a reasonably comprehensive view of the state of the prediction methods.
2. Mosimann S, Meleshko R, James MNG. A critical assessment of comparative molecular modeling of tertiary structures of proteins. of outstanding interest Proteins. 23:1995;301-317 An in-depth analysis of the performance of comparative modeling methods in blind tests.
3. Lemer CM-R, Rooman MJ, Wodak SJ. Protein structure prediction by threading methods: evaluation of current techniques. of outstanding interest Proteins. 23:1995;337-355 An in-depth analysis of the performance of threading methods in blind tests.
4. Defay T, Cohen FE. Evaluation of current techniques for ab initio protein structure prediction. of outstanding interest Proteins. 23:1995;431-445 An in-depth analysis of the performance of ab initio prediction methods in blind tests.
5. Chothia C, Lesk AM. Relationship between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. EMBO J. 5:1986;823-827.
6. Risler J, Delorme M, Delacroix H, Mevarech M. Amino acid substitutions in structurally related proteins. A pattern recognition approach. Determination of a new and efficient scoring matrix. J Mol Biol. 204:1988;1019-1029.
7. Read J, Brayer G, Jurek L, James MNG. Critical evaluation of comparative model building of Streptomyces griseus trypsin. Biochemistry. 23:1984;6570-6575.
8. Greer J. Comparative model building methods: application to the family of the mammalian serine proteases. Proteins. 7:1990;317-334.
9. Šali A, Potterton L, Yuan F, Van Vlijimen H, Karplus M. Evaluation of comparative protein modeling by modeler. Proteins. 23:1995;318-326.
10. Vásquez M. Modeling side chain conformation. of special interest Curr Opin Struct Biol. 6:1996;217-221 A useful review of methods for constructing side chains in comparative modeling.
11. Chung SY, Subbiah S. How similar must a template protein be for homology modeling by side-chain packing methods. Hunter L, Klein T. Proceedings of the First Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing: 1996 Jan 2-6; Kona, Hawaii. 1996;126-141 World Scientific, Singapore.
12. Moult J, James MNG. An algorithm for determining the conformation of polypeptide segments in proteins by systematic search. Proteins. 1:1986;146-163.
13. Shenkin PS, Yarmush DL, Fine RM, Wang H, Levinthal C. Predicting antibody hypervariable loop conformation. I. Ensembles of random conformations for ringlike structures. Biopolymers. 26:1987;2053-2085.
14. Bruccoleri RE, Karplus M. Prediction of the folding of short polypeptide segments by uniform conformation sampling. Biopolymers. 26:1987;137-168.
15. Dukek MJ, Scheraga HA. Protein structure prediction using a combination of sequence homology and global energy minimization I. Global energy minimization of surface loops. J Comput Chem. 11:1990;121-151.
16. Samudrala R, Pedersen JT, Zhou H, Luo R, Fidelis K, Moult J. Confronting the problem of interconnected structural changes in comparative modeling of proteins. Proteins. 23:1995;327-336.
17. Mizuguchi K, Go N. Seeking significance in three-dimensional protein structure comparisons. of special interest Curr Opin Struct Biol. 5:1995;377-382 A discussion of the issues involved in comparing the folds of protein molecules.
18. Chothia C. One thousand folds for the molecular biologist. Nature. 357:1992;543-544.
19. Orengo CA, Jones DT, Thornton JM. Protein superfamilies and domain superfolds. Nature. 372:1994;631-634.
20. Bowie JU, Thy RL, Eisenberg D. A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science. 253:1991;164-169.
21. Jones DT, Thornton JM. Potential energy functions for threading. of special interest Curr Opin Struct Biol. 6:1996;210-216 A recent review of the types of interaction potentials used for threading.
22. Lathrop RH. The protein threading problem with sequence amino acid interaction preferences is NP-complete. Protein Eng. 7:1994;1059-1068.
23. Flöckner H, Braxenthaler M, Lackner P, Jaritz M, Ortner M, Sippi MJ. Progress in fold recognition. Proteins. 23:1995;376-386.
24. Godzik A, Kolinski A. A sequence - structure matching in globular proteins: application to supersecondary structure and tertiary structure predictions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 89:1992;12098-12102.
25. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. A new approach to protein fold recognition. Nature. 358:1992;86-89.
26. Jones DT, Miller RT, Thornton JM. Successful protein fold recognition by optimal sequence threading validated by rigorous blind testing. Proteins. 23:1995;387-397.
27. Madej T, Gilbrat J-F, Bryant SH. Threading a database of protein cores. Proteins. 23:1995;356-369.
28. Barton GJ. Protein secondary structure prediction. of special interest Curr Opin Struct Biol. 5:1995;372-376 A recent review of secondary structure prediction methods.
29. Rost B, Sander C, Schneider R. Redefining the goals of protein secondary structure prediction. J Mol Biol. 235:1994;13-26.
30. Hubbard TJ, Park J. Fold recognition and ab initio structure predictions using hidden Markov models and beta-strand pair potentials. Proteins. 23:1995;398-402.
31. Benner SA, Gerloff D, Chelvanayagam G. The phospho-beta-galactosidase and synaptotagmin predictions. Proteins. 23:1995;446-453.
32. Pedersen JT, Moult J. Ab initio structure prediction for small peptides and protein fragments using genetic algorithms. Proteins. 23:1995;454-460.
33. Casari G, Andrade MA, Bork P, Boyle J, Daruvar A, Ouzounis C, Schneider R, Tamames J, Valencia A, Sander C. Challenging times for bioinformatics. Nature. 376:1995;647-648.
34. Ring CS, Sun E, McKerrow JH, Lee GK, Rosenthal PJ, Kuntz ID, Cohen FE. Structure based inhibitor design by using models for the development of antiparasitic agents. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 90:1993;3583-3587.
35. Srinivasan R, Rose GD. LINUS: a hierarchic procedure to predict the fold of a protein. Proteins. 22:1995;81-99.
36. Strynadka NCJ, Eisenstein M, Katchalski-Katsir E, Shoichet BK, Kuntz ID, Abagyan R, Totrov M, Janin J, Cherfils J, Zimmerman F, Olson A, Duncan B, Rao M, Jackson R, Sternberg M, James MNJ. Molecular docking programs successfully predict the binding of a beta-lactamase inhibitory protein to TEM-1 beta-lactamase. of special interest Nat Struct Biol. 3:1996;233-239 A blind test of the ability of protein - protein docking methods to predict the mode of association of two protein molecules. Several methods produced good results.