Biochemistry: Toward high-resolution de novo structure prediction for small proteins

Science

Volumn 309, Issue 5742, 2005, Pages 1868-1871

  Bradley, Philip ^a   Misura, Kira M S ^a   Baker, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACIDS; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; PROTEINS; SAMPLING;

BOTTLENECK; HIGH-RESOLUTION DE NOVO STRUCTURE; PROTEIN CORES; STRUCTURE PREDICTION;

BIOCHEMISTRY;

PROTEIN;

BIOCHEMISTRY;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; BIOLOGY; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HYDROGEN BOND; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; PROTEIN TERTIARY STRUCTURE; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; THERMODYNAMICS;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HYDROGEN BONDING; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, SECONDARY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 24944493938     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1113801     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. C.B. Anfinsen, E. Haber, M. Sela, F. H. White Jr., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 47, 1309 (1961).
2. C. Levinthal, J. Chim. Phys. 65, 44 (1968).
3. J. Moult, K. Fidelis, A. Zemla, T. Hubbard, Proteins 53 (Suppl 6), 334 (2003).
4. B. Kuhlman et al., Science 302, 1364 (2003).
5. J. Tsai et al., Proteins 53, 76 (2003).
6. K. M. S. Misura, D. Baker, Proteins 59, 15 (2005).
7. Z. Li, H. A. Scheraga, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 84, 6611 (1987).
8. B. Kuhlman, D. Baker, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 10383 (2000).
9. R. L. Dunbrack Jr, F. E. Cohen, Protein Sci. 6, 1661 (1997).
10. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
11. Inspection of the multiple sequence alignment revealed that the target sequence had several hydrophobic residues at exposed beta-sheet positions in this topology that were replaced by polar residues in other members of the alignment, which offers a possible explanation for the absence of this topology in target-sequence models.
12. C. A. Rohl, C. E. Strauss, D. Chivian, D. Baker, Proteins 55, 656 (2004).
13. The single case where non-native models had lower energies than the native is a domain of a larger protein that has a quite hydrophobic interface and may not be stable in isolation.
14. G. Dantas, B. Kuhlman, D. Callender, M. Wong, D. Baker, J. Mol. Biol. 332, 449 (2003).
15. J. J. Gray et al., J. Mol. Biol. 331, 281 (2003).
16. C. Wang, O. Schueler-Furman, D. Baker, Protein Sci. 14, 1328 (2005).
17. The physical chemistry of the packing of nonpolar atoms is considerably easier to model than the subtle trade-offs between desolvation of polar groups and the formation of buried polar interactions. Accurate modeling of functional sites may further require inclusion of explicit solvent molecules, modeling of protonation states and interactions with ligands, and polarizible electrostatics treatments. Together with the increase in the cost of refinement with chain length, this has implications for structural genomics efforts: The refinement to high resolution of comparative models of large proteins (>400 amino acids) based on ∼30% sequence identity, with many buried polar and charged residues, may be a harder problem than the de novo prediction of the structures of small proteins.
18. H. M. Berman et al., Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 235 (2000).
19. A. G. Murzin, S. E. Brenner, T. Hubbard, C. Chothia, J. Mol. Biol. 247, 536 (1995).
20. To conserve computational resources, no round 2 modeling was done for Glucose Permease IIBC because the native topology was never sampled during fragment assembly. Secondary structure predictions for all 50 homologs predicted an alpha helix in place of the N-terminal beta strand in the native structure.
21. Core residues are defined as those with <20% solvent-accessible surface area compared with an extended G-X-G peptide.
22. W. L. Delano (DeLano Scientific, San Carlos, CA, USA, 2002).
23. We thank L. Malmström for computational assistance and K. Laidig for flawless administration of the computing resources necessary for these calculations. We gratefully acknowledge support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (P.B. and D.B.) and the Helen Hay Whitney Foundation (K.M.S.M.).