Comparative modeling for protein structure prediction

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 172-177

  Ginalski, Krzysztof ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

ACCURACY; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; STRUCTURAL GENOMICS; TECHNIQUE;

ALGORITHMS; ESCHERICHIA COLI PROTEINS; MEMBRANE PROTEINS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; NITROREDUCTASES; PROTEINS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, PROTEIN; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY, PROTEIN; THERMOTOGA MARITIMA;

EID: 33646002994     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2006.02.003     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Bradley P., Misura K.M., and Baker D. Toward high-resolution de novo structure prediction for small proteins. Science 309 (2005) 1868-1871. A review of recent progress in de novo protein structure prediction.
2. Baker D., and Sali A. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science 294 (2001) 93-96
3. Chothia C., and Lesk A.M. The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. EMBO J 5 (1986) 823-826
4. Marti-Renom M.A., Stuart A.C., Fiser A., Sanchez R., Melo F., and Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 29 (2000) 291-325
5. Altschul S.F., Madden T.L., Schaffer A.A., Zhang J., Zhang Z., Miller W., and Lipman D.J. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25 (1997) 3389-3402
6. Ginalski K., Grishin N.V., Godzik A., and Rychlewski L. Practical lessons from protein structure prediction. Nucleic Acids Res 33 (2005) 1874-1891. This comprehensive review outlines currently available practical approaches to protein structure prediction, including recent advances in model quality assessment.
7. Ohlson T., Wallner B., and Elofsson A. Profile-profile methods provide improved fold-recognition: a study of different profile-profile alignment methods. Proteins 57 (2004) 188-197. An evaluation of different profile-profile alignment methods.
8. Wang G., and Dunbrack Jr. R.L. Scoring profile-to-profile sequence alignments. Protein Sci 13 (2004) 1612-1626
9. Sadreyev R.I., and Grishin N.V. Quality of alignment comparison by COMPASS improves with inclusion of diverse confident homologs. Bioinformatics 20 (2004) 818-828
10. Wrabl J.O., and Grishin N.V. Gaps in structurally similar proteins: towards improvement of multiple sequence alignment. Proteins 54 (2004) 71-87
11. Przybylski D., and Rost B. Improving fold recognition without folds. J Mol Biol 341 (2004) 255-269
12. Bujnicki J.M., Elofsson A., Fischer D., and Rychlewski L. Structure prediction meta server. Bioinformatics 17 (2001) 750-751
13. Moult J., Fidelis K., Tramontano A., Rost B., and Hubbard T. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP) - round VI. Proteins (2005)
14. Kryshtafovych A., Venclovas C., Fidelis K., and Moult J. Progress over the first decade of CASP experiments. Proteins 61 suppl 7 (2005) 225-236. A description of the progress made in protein structure prediction during the course of the CASP experiments.
15. Moult J. A decade of CASP: progress, bottlenecks and prognosis in protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 15 (2005) 285-289. This paper reviews the state of the art in protein structure prediction in the context of a decade of CASP experiments.
16. Tress M., Ezkurdia I., Grana O., Lopez G., and Valencia A. Assessment of predictions submitted for the CASP6 comparative modelling category. Proteins 61 suppl 7 (2005) 27-45. An assessment of the state of the art in comparative modeling from CASP6.
17. Ginalski K., and Rychlewski L. Protein structure prediction of CASP5 comparative modeling and fold recognition targets using consensus alignment approach and 3D assessment. Proteins 53 suppl 6 (2003) 410-417
18. Venclovas C., and Margelevicius M. Comparative modeling in CASP6 using consensus approach to template selection, sequence-structure alignment and structure assessment. Proteins 61 suppl 7 (2005) 99-105. A report from one of the best performing groups in the comparative modeling category of CASP6.
19. Kolinski A., and Bujnicki J.M. Generalized protein structure prediction based on combination of fold-recognition with de novo folding and evaluation of models. Proteins 61 suppl 7 (2005) 84-90
20. Margelevicius M., and Venclovas C. PSI-BLAST-ISS: an intermediate sequence search tool for estimation of the position-specific alignment reliability. BMC Bioinformatics 6 (2005) 185
21. Luthy R., Bowie J.U., and Eisenberg D. Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Nature 356 (1992) 83-85
22. Sippl M.J. Recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Proteins 17 (1993) 355-362
23. Rohl C.A., Strauss C.E., Chivian D., and Baker D. Modeling structurally variable regions in homologous proteins with Rosetta. Proteins 55 (2004) 656-677. A de novo method for modeling structurally variable regions in comparative models based on the Rosetta structure prediction algorithm is described and evaluated.
24. Fischer D., Rychlewski L., Dunbrack Jr. R.L., Ortiz A.R., and Elofsson A. CAFASP3: the third critical assessment of fully automated structure prediction methods. Proteins 53 suppl 6 (2003) 503-516
25. Rychlewski L., and Fischer D. LiveBench-8: the large-scale, continuous assessment of automated protein structure prediction. Protein Sci 14 (2005) 240-245. A report on the performance of protein structure prediction servers in the LiveBench-8 experiment.
26. Koh I.Y., Eyrich V.A., Marti-Renom M.A., Przybylski D., Madhusudhan M.S., Eswar N., Grana O., Pazos F., Valencia A., Sali A., et al. EVA: evaluation of protein structure prediction servers. Nucleic Acids Res 31 (2003) 3311-3315
27. Deshpande N., Addess K.J., Bluhm W.F., Merino-Ott J.C., Townsend-Merino W., Zhang Q., Knezevich C., Xie L., Chen L., Feng Z., et al. The RCSB Protein Data Bank: a redesigned query system and relational database based on the mmCIF schema. Nucleic Acids Res 33 (2005) D233-D237
28. Ginalski K., Elofsson A., Fischer D., and Rychlewski L. 3D-Jury: a simple approach to improve protein structure predictions. Bioinformatics 19 (2003) 1015-1018
29. Fischer D. 3D-SHOTGUN: a novel, cooperative, fold-recognition meta-predictor. Proteins 51 (2003) 434-441
30. Ginalski K., von Grotthuss M., Grishin N.V., and Rychlewski L. Detecting distant homology with Meta-BASIC. Nucleic Acids Res 32 (2004) W576-W581
31. Zhou H., and Zhou Y. SPARKS 2 and SP(3) servers in CASP 6. Proteins (2005)
32. Cozzetto D., and Tramontano A. Relationship between multiple sequence alignments and quality of protein comparative models. Proteins 58 (2005) 151-157. The distribution of sequence identity in multiple sequence alignments is demonstrated to be a good estimator of the quality of comparative models.
33. DeWeese-Scott C., and Moult J. Molecular modeling of protein function regions. Proteins 55 (2004) 942-961. The authors explore the usefulness of comparative models in deducing details of molecular function. They demonstrate that, in general, good insight into ligand binding can be obtained, providing there are no alignment errors.
34. Chakravarty S., and Sanchez R. Systematic analysis of added-value in simple comparative models of protein structure. Structure 12 (2004) 1461-1470. This study justifies the use of comparative models instead of templates to estimate structure-derived properties of proteins, showing that, in general, their added value increases with lower target-template sequence identity.
35. ••], the authors show that the average accuracy of structure-derived properties of comparative models increases with higher target-template sequence identity. They also reveal that, for most properties, the differences observed between NMR and X-ray structures are similar to the errors in models based on templates with ∼40% sequence identity.
36. Giorgetti A., Raimondo D., Miele A.E., and Tramontano A. Evaluating the usefulness of protein structure models for molecular replacement. Bioinformatics 21 (2005) ii72-ii76. This study reveals that there is a clear relationship between the quality of comparative models and their suitability for molecular replacement. It also shows that target-template sequence identity is not a good diagnostic for the success of the procedure.
37. Contreras-Moreira B., Ezkurdia I., Tress M.L., and Valencia A. Empirical limits for template-based protein structure prediction: the CASP5 example. FEBS Lett 579 (2005) 1203-1207. An analysis of the empirical limits of template-based modeling of protein structure suggests that the methodology is approaching its limits for easy comparative modeling and that additional improvements in quality require information not available from template structures.
38. Zhang Y., and Skolnick J. Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on a genomic scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 (2004) 7594-7599
39. Misura K.M., and Baker D. Progress and challenges in high-resolution refinement of protein structure models. Proteins 59 (2005) 15-29
40. Qian B., Ortiz A.R., and Baker D. Improvement of comparative model accuracy by free-energy optimization along principal components of natural structural variation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 (2004) 15346-15351. The authors present a novel approach to refining comparative models by free energy optimization along evolutionarily favored sampling directions. They show that improvement in model quality can be obtained.
41. Grishin N.V. Fold change in evolution of protein structures. J Struct Biol 134 (2001) 167-185
42. Kinch L.N., and Grishin N.V. Evolution of protein structures and functions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 12 (2002) 400-408
43. Grant A., Lee D., and Orengo C. Progress towards mapping the universe of protein folds. Genome Biol 5 (2004) 107
44. Yan Y., and Moult J. Protein family clustering for structural genomics. J Mol Biol 353 (2005) 744-759
45. Liu J., Hegyi H., Acton T.B., Montelione G.T., and Rost B. Automatic target selection for structural genomics on eukaryotes. Proteins 56 (2004) 188-200
46. Sanchez R., Pieper U., Melo F., Eswar N., Marti-Renom M.A., Madhusudhan M.S., Mirkovic N., and Sali A. Protein structure modeling for structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol 7 suppl (2000) 986-990