Discriminative ability with respect to amino acid types: Assessing the performance of knowledge-based potentials without threading

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 266-284

  Kuznetsov, Igor B ^a   Rackovsky, S ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Amino acid distance matrix; Cluster analysis; Comparison of distributions; Low resolution model; Potential of mean force; Protein structure prediction; Reduced alphabet; Residue environment

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID ANALYSIS; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; INDIVIDUALITY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MUTAGENESIS; PARAMETRIC TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; AMINO ACIDS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HYDROPHOBICITY; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, SECONDARY; PROTEINS; SAMPLE SIZE; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, PROTEIN;

EID: 0036836550     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.10211     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Vendruscolo M, Najmanovich R, Domany E. Can a pairwise contact potential stabilize native protein folds against decoys obtained by threading? Proteins 2000;38:134-148.
2. Jones DT, Thornton JM. Potential energy functions for threading. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1996;6:210-216.
3. Lemer C, Rooman M, Wodak S. Protein structure prediction by threading methods: evaluation of current techniques. Proteins 1995;23:337-355.
4. Tobi D, Shafran G, Linial N, Elber R. On the design and analysis of protein folding potentials. Proteins 2000;40:71-85.
5. Betancourt MS, Thirumalai D. Pair potentials for protein folding: choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes. ProtSci 1999;8:361-369.
6. Sippl MJ. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1995;5:229-235.
7. Thomas PD, Dill KA. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: how accurate are they? J Mol Biol 1996;257:457-469.
8. Rooman M, Gilis D. Different derivations of knowledge-based potentials and analysis of their robustness and context-dependent predictive power. Eur J Biochem 1998;254:135-143.
9. Maiorov VN, Crippen GM. Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1992;227:876-888.
10. Meller J, Elber R. Linear programming optimization and a double statistical filter for protein threading protocols. Proteins 2001;45: 241-261.
11. Sippl MJ. Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1990;213:859-883.
12. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. A new approach to protein fold recognition. Nature 1992;358:86-89.
13. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation. Macromolecules 1985;18:534-552.
14. Skolnick J, Jaroszewski L, Kolinski A, Godzik A. Derivation and testing of pair potentials for protein folding. When is the quasichemical approximation correct? Prot Sci 1997;6:676-688.
15. Kocher JP, Rooman M, Wodak SJ. Factors influencing the ability of knowledge-based potentials to identify native sequence-structure matches. J Mol Biol 1994;235:1598-1613.
16. Gregoret LM, Cohen FE. Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1990;211:959-974.
17. Munson PJ, Singh RJ. Statistical significance of hierarchical multibody potentials based on Delaunay tessellation and their application in sequence-structure alignment. Prot Sci 1997;6:1467-1481.
18. Bahar I, Jernigan RL. Inter-residue potentials in globular proteins and the dominance of highly specific hydrophilic interactions at close separation. J Mol Biol 1997;266:195-214.
19. Bowie JU, Luthy R, Eisenberg D. A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science 1991;253:164-170.
20. Wilmanns M, Eisenberg D. Inverse protein folding by the residue pair preference profile method: estimating the correctness of alignments of structurally compatible sequences. Prot Eng 1995;8: 627-639.
21. Matsuo Y, Nakamura H, Nishikawa K. Detection of protein 3D-1D compatibility characterized by the evaluation of side-chain packing and electrostatic interactions. J Biochem 1995;118:137-148.
22. Sunyaev SR, Eisenhaber F, Argos P, Kuznetsov EN, Tumanyan VG. Are knowledge-based potentials derived from protein structure sets discriminative with respect to residue types? Proteins 1998;31:225-246.
23. Zhang B, Jaroszewski L, Rychlewski L, Godzik A. Similarities and differences between non-homologous proteins with similar folds: evaluation of threading strategies. Fold Des 1997;2:307-317.
24. Mirny LA, Shakhnovich EI. How to derive a protein folding potential? A new approach to an old problem. J Mol Biol 1996;264: 1164-1179.
25. Gan HH, Tropsha A, Schlick T. Lattice protein folding with two and four-body statistical potentials. Proteins 2001;43:161-174.
26. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Protein stability for single substitution mutants and the extent of local compactness in the denatured state. Prot Eng 1994;7:1209-1220.
27. Gilis D, Rooman M. Predicting protein stability changes upon mutation using database-derived potentials: solvent accessibility determines the importance of local versus non-local interactions along the sequence. J Mol Biol 1997;272:276-290.
28. Carter CW Jr, LeFebvre BC, Cammer SA, Tropsha A, Edgell MH. Four-body potentials reveal protein-specific correlations to stability changes caused by hydrophobic core mutations. J Mol Biol 2001;311:625-638.
29. Mark AE, van Gunsteren WF. Decomposition of the free energy of a system in terms of specific interactions. J Mol Biol 1994;240:167-176.
30. Hobohm U, Sander C. Enlarged representative set of protein structures. Prot Sci 1994;3:522-524.
31. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:235-242.
32. Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers 1983;22:2577-2637.
33. Richards FM. Areas, volumes, packing and protein structure. Annu Rev Biophys-Bioeng 1977;6151-6176.
34. Rooman MJ, Wodak SJ. Are database-derived potentials valid for scoring both forward and inverted protein folding? Prot Eng 1995;9:849-858.
35. Tudos E, Fiser A, Simon I. Different sequence environments of amino acid residues involved and not involved in long-range interactions in proteins. Int J Pept Prot Res 1994;43:205-208.
36. Bordo D, Argos P. Evolution of protein cores: constraints in point mutations as observed in globin tertiary structures. J Mol Biol 1990;211:975-988.
37. Reddy BVB, Datta S, Tiwari S. Use of propensities of amino acids to the local structural environments to understand effect of substitution mutations o protein stability. Prot Eng 1998;11:1137-1145.
38. Cordes MHJ, Sauer RT. Tolerance of a protein to multiple polar-to-hydrophobic surface substitutions. Prot Sci 1999;8:318-325.
39. Lin J. Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE transactions on information theory. 1991;37:145-151.
40. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR. The principles and practice of numerical classification. London: W. H. Freeman; 1973. 573 pp.
41. S-Plus 2000 User's guide. Data analysis products division. Seattle: Math Soft; 1999.
42. Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ. Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1990. 342 pp.
43. Rousseeuw PJ. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math 1987;20: 53-65.
44. Reva BA, Finkelstein AV, Sanner MF, Olson AJ. Residue-residue mean-force potentials for protein structure recognition. Prot Eng 1997;10:865-876.
45. Bernaola-Galvan P, Roman-Roldan R, Oliver JL. Compositional segmentation and long-range fractal correlations in DNA sequences. Phys Rev E 1996;53:5181-5189.
46. Johnson MS, Overington JP. A structural basis for sequence comparisons. An evaluation of scoring methodologies. J Mol Biol 1993;233:716-738.
47. Prlic A, Domingnes FS, Sippl MJ. Structure-derived substitution matrices for alignment of distantly related sequences. Prot Eng 2000;13:545-550.
48. Henikoff S, Henikoff JG. Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:10915-10519.
49. Dayhoff MO, Schwartz RM, Orcutt BC. A model of evolutionary change in proteins. In: MO Dayhoff, editor. Atlas of protein sequence and structure, vol. 5, suppl. 3. Washington, DC: Natl Biomed Res Found; 1978. p 345-352.
50. Kidera A, Konishi Y, Oka M, Ooi T, Scheraga HA. Statistical analysis of the physical properties of the 20 naturally occurring amino acids. J Prot Chem 1985;4:23-55.
51. Murphy LR, Wallqvist A, Levy RM. Simplified amino acid alphabets for protein fold recognition and implications for folding. Prot Eng 2000;13:149-152.
52. Solis A, Rackovsky S. Optimized representations and maximal information in proteins. Proteins 2000;38:149-164.
53. Deleage R, Roux B. An algorithm for protein secondary structure prediction based on class prediction. Prot Eng 1987;1:289-294.
54. Grantham R. Amino acid difference formula to help explain protein evolution. Science 1974;185:862-864.
55. Cid H, Bunster M, Canales M, Gazitua F. Hydrophobicity and structural classes in proteins. J Prot Eng 1992;5:373-375.