Ab initio construction of polypeptide fragments: Accuracy of loop decoy discrimination by an all-atom statistical potential and the AMBER force field with the generalized born solvation model

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 21-40

  De Bakker, Paul I W ^a   DePristo, Mark A ^a   Burke, David F ^a   Blundell, Tom L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

AMBER force field; Decoy ensembles; Discrimination; Generalized born continuum solvation; Loop modeling; Statistical potential

Indexed keywords

PEPTIDE FRAGMENT; POLYPEPTIDE;

AB INITIO CALCULATION; ARTICLE; ENERGY; HYBRID; MOLECULAR MECHANICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; SOLVATION;

ALGORITHMS; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; GUANYLATE KINASE; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; NUCLEOSIDE-PHOSPHATE KINASE; PEPTIDE FRAGMENTS; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOLVENTS; THYMIDYLATE SYNTHASE;

EID: 0037375615     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.10235     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Moult J. Comparison of database potentials and molecular mechanics force fields. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997;7:194-199.
2. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Effective energy functions for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2000;10:139-145.
3. Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI, Gould IR, Merz KM Jr, Ferguson DM, Spellmeyer DC, Fox T, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA. A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins and nucleic acids. J Am Chem Soc 1995;117:5179-5197.
4. MacKerell AD Jr, Bashford D, Bellott M, Dunbrack RL Jr., Evanseck JD, Field MJ, Fischer S, Gao J, Guo H, Ha S, Joseph-McCarthy D, Kuchnir L, Kuczera K, Lau FTK, Mattos C, Michnick S, Ngo T, Nguyen DT, Prodhom B, Reither III WE, Roux B, Schlenkrich M, Smith JC, Stote R, Straub J, Watanabe M, Wiórkiewicz-Kuczera J, Yin D, Karplus M. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J Phys Chem B 1998;102:3586-3616.
5. Novotny J, Bruccoleri R, Karplus M. An analysis of incorrectly folded protein models. Implications for structure predictions. J Mol Biol 1984;177:787-818.
6. Novotny J, Rashin AA, Bruccoleri RE. Criteria that discriminate between native proteins and incorrectly folded models. Proteins 1988;4:19-30.
7. Smith PE, Pettitt BM. Peptides in ionic solutions: A comparison of the Ewald and switching function techniques. J Chem Phys 1991;95:8430-8441.
8. Hünenberger PH, McCammon JA. Effect of artificial periodicity in simulations of biomolecules under Ewald boundary conditions: A continuum electrostatics study. Biophys Chem 1999;78:69-88.
9. Honig B, Nicholls A. Classical electrostatics in biology and chemistry. Science 1995;268:1144-1149.
10. Warshel A, Papazyan A. Electrostatic effects in macromolecules: Fundamental concepts and practical modeling. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1998;8:211-217.
11. Bashford D, Case DA. Generalized Born models of macromolecular solvation effects. Annu Rev Phys Chem 2000;51:129-152.
12. Smith KC, Honig B. Evaluation of the conformational free energies of loops in proteins. Proteins 1994;18:119-132.
13. Rapp CS, Friesner RA. Prediction of loop geometries using a Generalized Born model of solvation effects. Proteins 1999;35:173-183.
14. Still WC, Tempczyk A, Hawley RC, Hendrickson T. Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. J Am Chem Soc 1990;112:6127-6129.
15. Qiu D, Shenkin PS, Hollinger FP, Still WC. The GB/SA continuum model for solvation. A fast analytical method for the calculation of approximate Born radii. J Phys Chem A 1997;101:3005-3014.
16. Holm L, Sander C. Evaluation of protein models by atomic solvation preference. J Mol Biol 1992;225:93-105.
17. Samudrala R, Levitt M. Decoys 'R' Us: A database of incorrect conformations to improve protein structure prediction. Protein Sci 2000;9:1399-1401.
18. 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 uses both dynamics simulations with an explicit solvent and an implicit solvent continuum model. Proteins 1998;32:399-413.
19. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Effective energy function for proteins in solution. Proteins 1999;35:133-152.
20. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Discrimination of the native from misfolded protein models with an energy function including implicit solvation. J Mol Biol 1999;288:477-487.
21. Dominy BN, Brooks CL III. Identifying native-like protein structures using physics-based potentials. J Comput Chem 2002;23:147-160.
22. Thomas PD, Dill KA. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: How accurate are they? J Mol Biol 1996;257:457-469.
23. Ben-Naim A. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: Are these meaningful potentials? J Chem Phys 1997;107:3698-3706.
24. Jones DT, Tress M, Bryson K, Hadley C. Successful recognition of protein folds using threading methods biased by sequence similarity and predicted secondary structure. Proteins 1999;S3:104-111.
25. Domingues FS, Koppensteiner WA, Jaritz M, Prlic A, Weichenberger C, Wiederstein M, Floeckner H, Lackner P, Sippl MJ. Sustained performance of knowledge-based potentials in fold recognition. Proteins 1999;S3:112-120.
26. Simons KT, Ruczinski I, Kooperberg C, Fox BA, Bystroff C, Baker D. Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins. Proteins 1999;34:82-95.
27. Samudrala R, Xia Y, Huang E, Levitt M. Ab initio protein structure prediction using a combined hierarchical approach. Proteins 1999;S3:194-198.
28. Robert CH, Janin J. A soft, mean-field potential derived from crystal contacts for predicting protein-protein interactions. J Mol Biol 1998;283:1037-47.
29. Melo F, Feytmans E. Novel knowledge-based mean force potential at atomic level. J Mol Biol 1997;267:207-222.
30. Samudrala R, Moult J. An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. J Mol Biol 1998;275:895-916.
31. Rojnuckarin A, Subramaniam S. Knowledge-based interaction potentials for proteins. Proteins 1999;36:54-67.
32. 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.
33. Melo F, Feytmans E. Assessing protein structures with a non-local atomic interaction energy. J Mol Biol 1998;277:1141-1152.
34. DePristo MA, de Bakker PIW, Lovell SC, Blundell TL. Ab initio construction of polypeptide fragments: Efficient generation of accurate, representative ensembles. Proteins 2003;51:41-55.
35. Bower MJ, Cohen FE, Dunbrack RL Jr. Prediction of protein side-chain rotamers from a backbone-dependent rotamer library: A new homology modeling tool. J Mol Biol 1997;267:1268-1282.
36. Engh RA, Huber R. Accurate bond and angle parameters for X-ray protein-structure refinement. Acta Crystallogr A 1991;47:392-400.
37. Word JM, Lovell SC, LaBean TH, Taylor HC, Zalis ME, Presley BK, Richardson JS, Richardson DC. Visualizing and quantifying molecular goodness-of-fit: small-probe contact dots with explicit hydrogen atoms. J Mol Biol 1999;285:1711-1733.
38. Fiser A, Do RKG, Šali A. Modeling of loops in protein structures. Protein Sci 2000;9:1753-1773.
39. Hooft RWW, Vriend G, Sander C, Abola EE. Errors in protein structures. Nature 1996;381:272.
40. Lovell SC, Davis IW, Arendall WB III, de Bakker PIW, Word JM, Prisant MG, Richardson JS, Richardson DC. Structure validation by Cα geometry: π/ψ and Cβ deviation. Proteins 2002;50:437-450.
41. Deane CM, Blundell TL. A novel exhaustive search algorithm for predicting the conformation of polypeptide segments in proteins. Proteins 2000;40:135-144.
42. Deane CM, Blundell TL. CODA: a combined algorithm for predicting the structurally variable regions of protein models. Protein Sci 2001;10:599-612.
43. Topham CM, McLeod A, Eisenmenger F, Overington JP, Johnson MS, Blundell TL. Fragment ranking in modelling of protein structure. Conformationally constrained environmental amino acid substitution tables. J Mol Biol 1993;229:194-220.
44. 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.
45. Tobi D, Elber R. Distance-dependent, pair potential for protein folding: Results from linear optimization. Proteins 2000;41:40-46.
46. Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J Mol Biol 1995;247:536-540.
47. Pellequer JL, Chen SW. Does conformational free energy distinguish loop conformations in proteins? Biophys J 1997;73:2359-2375.
48. Lovell SC, Word JM, Richardson JS, Richardson DC. The penultimate rotamer library. Proteins 2000;40:389-408.
49. Fidelis K, Stern PS, Bacon D, Moult J. Comparison of systematic search and database methods for constructing segments of protein structure. Prot Eng 1994;7:953-960.
50. Sali A, Blundell TL. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol 1993;234:779-815.
51. Guvench O, Weiser J, Shenkin P, Kolossvary I, Still WC. Application of the frozen atom approximation to the GB/SA continuum model for solvation free energy. J Comput Chem 2002;23:214-221.