An amino acid has two sides: A new 2D measure provides a different view of solvent exposure

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 38-48

  Hamelryck, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Accessible solvent area; Coordination number; Protein structure; Protein structure prediction; Residue depth; Simplifed models; Solvent exposure

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; SOLVENT;

ARTICLE; ATOM; CHEMICAL MODEL; ENERGY YIELD; EXPOSURE; GEOMETRY; HALF SPHERE EXPOSURE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, FUNCTION AND VARIABILITY; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; THERMODYNAMICS;

AMINO ACIDS; DATABASES, PROTEIN; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; SOLVENTS; SURFACE PROPERTIES;

EID: 14644400399     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.20379     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. 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.
2. Simons K, Kooperberg C, Huang E, Baker D. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J Mol Biol 1997;268:209-225.
3. Rice D, Eisenberg D. A 3D-1D substitution matrix for protein fold recognition that includes predicted secondary structure of the sequence. J Mol Biol 1997;267:1026-1038.
4. Rost B. Better 1D predictions by experts with machines. Proteins 1997;Suppl 1:192-197.
5. Shi J, Blundell T, Mizuguchi K. FUGUE: sequence-structure homology recognition using environment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. J Mol Biol 2001;310:243-257.
6. Guerois R, Nielsen J, Serrano L. Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. J Mol Biol 2002;320:369-387.
7. Bartlett G, Porter C, Borkakoti N, Thornton J. Analysis of catalytic residues in enzyme active sites. J Mol Biol 2002;324:105-121.
8. Head-Gordon T, Brown S. Minimalist models for protein folding and design. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2003;13:160-167.
9. Rost B, Liu J. The PredictProtein server. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31:3300-3304.
10. Buchete N, Straub J, Thirumalai D. Development of novel statistical potentials for protein fold recognition. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2004;14:225-232.
11. Lee B, Richards F. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol 1971;55:379-400.
12. Greer J, Bush B. Macromolecular shape and surface maps by solvent exclusion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1978;75:303-307.
13. Connolly M. Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science 1983;221:709-713.
14. Sanner M, Olson A, Spehner J. Reduced surface: an efficient way to compute molecular surfaces. Biopolymers 1996;38:305-320.
15. Fraternali F, Cavallo L. Parameter optimized surfaces (POPS): analysis of key interactions and conformational changes in the ribosome. Nucleic Acids Res 2002;30:2950-2960.
16. Cavallo L, Kleinjung J, Fraternali F. POPS: a fast algorithm for solvent accessible surface areas at atomic and residue level. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31:3364-3366.
17. Rost B, Sander C. Conservation and prediction of solvent accessibility in protein families. Proteins 1994;20:216-226.
18. Chakravarty S, Varadarajan R. Residue depth: a novel parameter for the analysis of protein structure and stability. Structure Fold Des 1999;7:723-732.
19. Pintar A, Carugo O, Pongor S. Atom depth in protein structure and function. Trends Biochem Sci 2003;28:593-597.
20. Pintar A, Carugo O, Pongor S. Atom depth as a descriptor of the protein interior. Biophys J 2003;84:2553-2561.
21. Pollastri G, Baldi P, Fariselli P, Casadio R. Prediction of coordination number and relative solvent accessibility in proteins. Proteins 2002;47:142-153.
22. Matsumura M, Becktel W, Matthews B. Hydrophobic stabilization in T4 lysozyme determined directly by multiple substitutions of Ile 3. Nature 1988;334:406-410.
23. Russell R, Barton G. Structural features can be unconserved in proteins with similar folds. An analysis of side-chain to side-chain contacts secondary structure and accessibility. J Mol Biol 1994;244:332-350.
24. Bateman A, Birney E, Durbin R, Eddy S, Howe K, Sonnhammer E. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:263-266.
25. Hobohm U, Sander C. Enlarged representative set of protein structures. Protein Sci 1994;3:522-524.
26. Van Walle I, Lasters I, Wyns L. Align-m - a new algorithm for multiple alignment of highly divergent sequences. Bioinformatics 2004;20:1428-1435.
27. Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers 1983;22:2577-2637.
28. Bava K, Gromiha M, Uedaira H, Kitajima K, Sarai A. ProTherm, version 4.0: thermodynamic database for proteins and mutants. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32 Database issue:D120-121.
29. Chapman B, Chang J. Biopython: python tools for computational biology. ACM SIGBIO Newsletter 2000;20:15-19.
30. Hamelryck T, Manderick B. PDB file parser and structure class implemented in Python. Bioinformatics 2003;19:2308-2310.
31. Loris R, Hamelryck T, Bouckaert J, Wyns L. Legume lectin structure. Biochim Biophys Acta 1998;1383:9-36.
32. Hamelryck T, Moore J, Chrispeels M, Loris R, Wyns L. The role of weak protein-protein interactions in multivalent lectin-carbohydrate binding: crystal structure of cross-linked FRIL. J Mol Biol 2000;299:875-883.
33. Karchin R, Cline M, Karplus K. Evaluation of local structure alphabets based on residue burial. Proteins 2004;55:508-518.
34. Raghunathan G, Jernigan R. Ideal architecture of residue packing and its observation in protein structures. Protein Sci 1997;6:2072-2083.
35. Serrano L, Kellis J, Cann P, Matouschek A, Fersht A. The folding of an enzyme. II. Substructure of barnase and the contribution of different interactions to protein stability. J Mol Biol 1992;224:783-804.
36. Jackson S, Moracci M, elMasry N, Johnson C, Fersht A. Effect of cavity-creating mutations in the hydrophobic core of chymotrypsin inhibitor 2. Biochemistry 1993;32:11259-11269.
37. Ratnaparkhi G, Varadarajan R. Thermodynamic and structural studies of cavity formation in proteins suggest that loss of packing interactions rather than the hydrophobic effect dominates the observed energetics. Biochemistry 2000;39:12365-12374.
38. Otzen D, Rheinnecker M, Fersht A. Structural factors contributing to the hydrophobic effect: the partly exposed hydrophobic minicore in chymotrypsin inhibitor 2. Biochemistry 1995;34:13051-13058.
39. Richardson C, Barlow D. The bottom line for prediction of residue solvent accessibility. Protein Eng 1999;12:1051-1054.
40. Yuan Z, Burrage K, Mattick J. Prediction of protein solvent accessibility using support vector machines. Proteins 2002;48:566-570.
41. Ahmad S, Gromiha M. NETASA: neural network based prediction of solvent accessibility. Bioinformatics 2002;18:819-824.
42. Gianese G, Bossa F, Pascarella S. Improvement in prediction of solvent accessibility by probability profiles. Protein Eng 2003;16:987-992.
43. Ahmad S, Gromiha M, Sarai A. RVP-net: online prediction of real valued accessible surface area of proteins from single sequences. Bioinformatics 2003;19:1849-1851.
44. Kim H, Park H. Prediction of protein relative solvent accessibility with support vector machines and long-range interaction 3D local descriptor. Proteins 2004;54:557-562.