A new hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm for protein potential function test and structure refinement

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 464-471

  Zhang, Hongyu ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Energy function test; Hybrid; Molecular dynamics; Monte Carlo; Protein folding

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ENERGY; FUNCTION TEST; HYBRID; MODEL; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; SYSTEM ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROTEIN FOLDING;

EID: 0033105370     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990301)34:4<464::AID-PROT6>3.0.CO;2-0     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Moult J. Pro-Star: the protein potential site. Evaluation of potentials (http://prostar.carb.nist.gov), 1998.
2. Hendlich M, Lackner P, Weitchus S, et al. 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.
3. Wang Y, Zhang H, Wei L, Scott R. Discriminating compact nonnative structures from the native structure of globular proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995;92:709-713.
4. Wang Y, Zhang H, Scott R. A new computational model for protein folding based on atomic solvation. Protein Sci 4: 1995;1402-1411.
5. 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;257:716-725.
6. Huang ES, Subbiah S, Levitt M. Recognizing native folds by the arrangement of hydrophobic and polar residues. J Mol Biol 1995;252:709-720.
7. Debolt S, Skolnick J. Evaluation of atomic level mean force potentials via inverse folding and inverse refinement of protein structures: atomic burial position and pair-wise non-bonded interactions. Protein Eng 1996;9:637-655.
8. Park B, Levitt M. Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. J Mol Biol 1996;258: 367-392.
9. Park B, Huang E, Levitt M. Factors affecting the ability of energy functions to discriminate correct from incorrect folds. J Mol Biol 1997;266:831-846.
10. Duane S, Kennedy AD, Pendleton BJ, Roweth D. Hybrid Monte Carlo. Phys Lett B 1987;195:216-222.
11. Brass A, Pendleton BJ, Chen Y, Robson B. Hybrid Monte Carlo simulations theory and initial comparison with molecular dynamics. Biopolymers 1993;33:1307-1315.
12. Forrest BM, Suter UW. Hybrid Monte Carlo simulations of dense polymer systems. J Chem Phys 1994;101:2616-2629.
13. Clamp ME, Baker PG, Stirling CJ, Brass A. Hybrid Monte Carlo: an efficient algorithm for condensed matter simulation. J Comput Chem 1994;15:838-846.
14. Guarnieri F, Still WC. A rapidly convergent simulation method: mixed Monte Carlo/Stochastic dynamics. J Comput Chem 1994;15: 1302-1310.
15. Byrne D, Li J, Platt E, Robson B, Weiner P. Novel algorithms for searching conformational space. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1994;8: 67-82.
16. Leontidis E, Forrest BM, Widmann AH, Suter UW. Monte Carlo algorithms for the atomistic simulation of condensed polymer phases. J Chem Soc Faraday Trans 1995;91:2355-2368.
17. Novotny J, Bruccoleri R, Karplus M. An analysis of incorrectly folded protein models. Implications for structure predictions. J Mol Biol 1984;177:787-818.
18. Novotny J, Rashin AA, Bruccoleri RE. Criteria that discriminate between native proteins and incorrectly folded models. Proteins 1988;4:19-30.
19. Sippl MJ. Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structure in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1990;213:859-883.
20. Sippl MJ. Boltzmann's principle, knowledge-based mean fields and protein folding: an approach to the computational determination of protein structures J Comput Aided Mol Des 1993;7:473-501.
21. Sippl MJ. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1995;5:229-235.
22. Jernigan R, Bahar I. Structure-derived potentials and protein simulation. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1996;6:195-209.
23. Rooman MJ, Wodak SJ. Are database-derived potentials valid for scoring both forward and inverted protein folding? Protein Eng 1995;8:849-858.
24. Godzik A, Kolinski A, Skolnick J. Are proteins ideal mixtures of amino acids? Analysis of energy parameter sets. Protein Sci 1995;4:2107-2117.
25. Miyazawa S, Jernigan R. Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Biol 1996;256:623-644.
26. Thomas PD, Dill KA. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: how accurate are they. J Mol Biol 1996;257:457-469.
27. Moult J. Comparison of database potentials and molecular mechanics force fields. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997;7:194-199.
28. Vorobjev YN, Almagro JC, Hermans J. Discrimination between native and intentionally misfolded conformations of proteins: ES/IS, a new method for calculating conformational free energy that used both dynamics simulations with an explicit solvent and an implicit solvent continuum model. Proteins 1998;32:399-413.
29. Zhang H. Fast and accurate prediction of protein local structures. Ph.D thesis, Peking Univsersity, 1996. p 1-25.
30. Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M. CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 1983;4: 187-217.
31. Kolinski A, Skolnick J. Monte Carlo Simulations of Protein Folding. II. Application to Protein A, ROP Crambin. Proteins 1994;18:353-366.
32. Olszewski K, Kolinski A, Skolnick J. Folding simulations and computer redesign of Protein A three-helix bundle motifs. Proteins 1996;25:286-299.
33. Boczko EM, Brooks III, CL. First-principles calculation of the folding free energy and pathway for a three-helix bundle protein. Science 1995;269:393-396.
34. Holm L, Sander C. Evaluation of protein models by atomic solvation preference. J Mol Biol 1992;225:93-105.