Structural refinement of protein segments containing secondary structure elements: Local sampling, knowledge-based potentials, and clustering

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 463-479

  Zhu, Jiang ^a   Xie, Li ^a   Honig, Barry ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Clustering algorithm; Generalized born model; Knowledge based potential; Secondary structure element; Structure refinement; Torsion space sampling

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ENERGY TRANSFER; KNOWLEDGE BASE; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, SECONDARY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS;

EID: 33749037718     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21085     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Pearson WR, Sierk ML. The limits of protein sequence comparison? Curr Opin Struct Biol 2005;15:254-260.
2. Fiser A. Protein structure modeling in the proteomics era. Expert Rev Proteomics 2004;1:97-110.
3. Tang CL, Xie L, Koh IYY, Posy S, Alexov E, Honig B. On the role of structural information in remote homology detection and sequence alignment: new methods using hybrid sequence profiles. J Mol Biol 2003;334:1043-1062.
4. Al-Lazikani B, Sheinerman FB, Honig B. Combining multiple structure and sequence alignments to improve sequence detection and alignment: application to the SH2 domains of Janus kinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:14796-14801.
5. Jaroszewski L, Rychlewski L, Godzik A. Improving the quality of twilight-zone alignments. Protein Sci 2000;9:1487-1496.
6. Kelley LA, MacCallum RM, Sternberg MJE. Enhanced genome annotation using structural profiles in the program 3D-PSSM. J Mol Biol 2000;299:499-520.
7. Sauder JM, Arthur JW, Dunbrack RL. Large-scale comparison of protein sequence alignment algorithms with structure alignments. Proteins 2000;40:6-22.
8. Zhou HY, Zhou YQ. Single-body residue-level knowledge-based energy score combined with sequence-profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition. Proteins 2004;55:1005-1013.
9. Kolodny R, Koehl P, Levitt M. Comprehensive evaluation of protein structure alignment methods: scoring by geometric measures. J Mol Biol 2005;346:1173-1188.
10. Yang AS, Honig B. An integrated approach to the analysis and modeling of protein sequences and structures. III. A comparative study of sequence conservation in protein structural families using multiple structural alignments. J Mol Biol 2000;301:691-711.
11. Yang AS, Honig B. Sequence to structure alignment in comparative modeling using PrISM. Proteins 1999;Suppl 3:66-72.
12. Moult J. A decade of CASP: progress, bottlenecks and prognosis in protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2005;15:285-289.
13. Valencia A. Protein refinement: a new challenge for CASP in its 10th anniversary. Bioinformatics 2005;21:277.
14. Shenkin PS, Yarmush DL, Fine RM, Wang HJ, Levinthal C. Predicting antibody hypervariable loop conformation. 1. Ensembles of random conformations for ring-like structures. Biopolymers 1987;26:2053-2085.
15. Cahill S, Cahill M, Cahill K. On the kinematics of protein folding. J Comput Chem 2003;24:1364-1370.
16. Canutescu AA, Dunbrack RL. Cyclic coordinate descent: A robotics algorithm for protein loop closure. Protein Sci 2003;12:963-972.
17. Cortes J, Simeon T, Remaud-Simeon M, Tran V. Geometric algorithms for the conformational analysis of long protein loops. J Comput Chem 2004;25:956-967.
18. Canutescu AA, Shelenkov AA, Dunbrack RL. A graph-theory algorithm for rapid protein side-chain prediction. Protein Sci 2003;12:2001-2014.
19. Xiang ZX, Honig B. Extending the accuracy limits of prediction for side-chain conformations. J Mol Biol 2001;311:421-430.
20. Flohil JA, Vriend G, Berendsen HJC. Completion and refinement of 3-D homology models with restricted molecular dynamics: application to targets 47, 58, and 111 in the CASP modeling competition and posterior analysis. Proteins 2002;48:593-604.
21. Fan H, Mark AE. Refinement of homology-based protein structures by molecular dynamics simulation techniques. Protein Sci 2004;13:211-220.
22. Linge JP, Williams MA, Spronk C, Bonvin A, Nilges M. Refinement of protein structures in explicit solvent. Proteins 2003;50:496-506.
23. Lee MR, Tsai J, Baker D, Kollman PA. Molecular dynamics in the endgame of protein structure prediction. J Mol Biol 2001;313:417-430.
24. van Gunsteren WFB, Eising AA, Hunenberger PH, Kruger P, Mark AE, Scott WRP, Tironi IG. Groningen Molecular Simulation (GROMOS) System. Groningen, the Netherlands: University of Groningen; 1996.
25. Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, TiradoRives J. Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 1996;118:11225-11236.
26. Jorgensen WL, Tiradorives J. The Opls potential functions for proteins - energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic-peptides and crambin. J Am Chem Soc 1988;110:1657-1666.
27. MacKerell AD Jr, Brooks B, Brooks CL III, Nilsson L, Roux B, Won Y, Karplus M. CHARMM, In: Schleyer PR, editor. The encyclopedia of computational chemistry. New York: Wiley; 1998. p 271.
28. Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI, Gould IR, Merz KM, Ferguson DM, Spellmeyer DC, Fox T, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA. A 2nd generation force-field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic-acids, and organic-molecules. J Am Chem Soc 1995;117:5179-5197.
29. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Effective energy functions for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2000;10:139-145.
30. Sippl MJ. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1995;5:229-235.
31. Vajda S, Sippl M, Novotny J. Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997;7:222-228.
32. Moult J. Comparison of database potentials and molecular mechanics force fields. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997;7:194-199.
33. Jernigan RL, Bahar I. Structure-derived potentials and protein simulations. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1996;6:195-209.
34. Shortle D, Simons KT, Baker D. Clustering of low-energy conformations near the native structures of small proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S America 1998;95:11158-11162.
35. Zhang Y, Skolnick J. SPICKER: a clustering approach to identify near-native protein folds. J Comput Chem 2004;25:865-871.
36. Xiang ZX, Soto CS, Honig B. Evaluating conformational free energies: the colony energy and its application to the problem of loop prediction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:7432-7437.
37. de Bakker PIW, DePristo MA, Burke DF, Blundell TL. 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 2003;51:21-40.
38. Zhang C, Liu S, Zhou YQ. Accurate and efficient loop selections by the DFIRE-based all-atom statistical potential. Protein Sci 2004;13:391-399.
39. Jacobson MP, Pincus DL, Rapp CS, Day TJF, Honig B, Shaw DE, Friesner RA. A hierarchical approach to all-atom protein loop prediction. Proteins 2004;55:351-367.
40. Fiser A, Do RKG, Sali A. Modeling of loops in protein structures. Protein Sci 2000;9:1753-1773.
41. Collura V, Higo J, Garnier J. Modeling of protein loops by simulated annealing. Protein Sci 1993;2:1502-1510.
42. vanVlijmen HWT, Karplus M. PDB-based protein loop prediction: parameters for selection and methods for optimization. J Mol Biol 1997;267:975-1001.
43. Rapp CS, Friesner RA. Prediction of loop geometries using a generalized born model of solvation effects. Proteins 1999;35:173-183.
44. Park S, Xi Y, Saven JG. Advances in computational protein design. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2004;14:487-494.
45. Street AG, Mayo SL. Computational protein design. Structure 1999;7:R105-R109.
46. Desmet J, Demaeyer M, Hazes B, Lasters I. The dead-end elimination theorem and its use in protein side-chain positioning. Nature 1992;356:539-542.
47. Desmet J, Spriet J, Lasters I. Fast and accurate side-chain topology and energy refinement (FASTER) as a new method for protein structure optimization. Proteins 2002;48:31-43.
48. Jacobson MP, Kaminski GA, Friesner RA, Rapp CS. Force field validation using protein side chain prediction. J Phys Chem B 2002;106:11673-11680.
49. Vasquez M. Modeling side-chain conformation. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1996;6:217-221.
50. Dunbrack RL. Rotamer libraries in the 21(st) century. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2002;12:431-440.
51. Eisenberg D, Luthy R, Bowie JU. VERIFY3D: assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Methods Enzymol 1997;277:396-404.
52. Luthy R, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D. Assessment of protein models with 3-dimensional profiles. Nature 1992;356:83-85.
53. Li X, Jacobson MP, Friesner RA. High-resolution prediction of protein helix positions and orientations. Proteins 2004;55:368-382.
54. Ghosh A, Rapp CS, Friesner RA. Generalized born model based on a surface integral formulation. J Phys Chem B 1998;102:10983-10990.
55. Rohl CA, Strauss CEM, Chivian D, Baker D. Modeling structurally variable regions in homologous proteins with rosetta. Proteins 2004;55:656-677.
56. Zhou HY, Zhou YQ. Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction. Protein Sci 2002;11:2714-2726.
57. Zhu J, Alexov E, Honig B. Comparative study of generalized Born models: Born radii and peptide folding. J Phys Chem B 2005;109:3008-3022.
58. Samudrala R, Moult J. An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. J Mol Biol 1998;275:895-916.
59. Hartigan JA, Wong MA. Algorithm AS136: a k-means clustering algorithm. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 1979;100-108.
60. Gallicchio E, Levy RM. AGBNP: an analytic implicit solvent model suitable for molecular dynamics simulations and high-resolution modeling. J Comput Chem 2004;25:479-499.
61. Liu DC, Nocedal J. On the limited memory Bfgs method for large-scale optimization. Mathematical Programming 1989;45:503-528.
62. Nocedal J. Updating quasi-Newton matrices with limited storage. Mathematics Comput 1980;35:773-782.
63. Ponder J, Rubenstein S, Kundrot C, Huston S, Dudek M, Kong Y, Hart R, Hodsdon M, Pappu R, Mooij W, Loeffler G. TINKER-software tools for molecular design, version 3.7. St. Louis, MO: Washington University; 1999.
64. Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, van Gunsteren WF, Hermans J. Interaction models for water in relation to protein hydration. In: Pullman B, editor. Intermodular forces. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel: 1981. p 331-342.
65. Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, Vangunsteren WF, Dinola A, Haak JR. Molecular-dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J Chem Phys 1984;81:3684-3690.
66. Darden T, York D, Pedersen L. Particle mesh ewald - an n.log(n) method for ewald sums in large systems. J Chem Phys 1993;98:10089-10092.
67. Essmann U, Perera L, Berkowitz ML, Darden T, Lee H, Pedersen LG. A smooth particle mesh ewald method. J Chem Phys 1995;103:8577-8593.
68. Hess B, Bekker H, Berendsen HJC, Fraaije J. LINCS: a linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J Comput Chem 1997;18:1463-1472.
69. Miyamoto S, Kollman PA. Settle - an analytical version of the shake and rattle algorithm for rigid water models. J Comput Chem 1992;13:952-962.
70. 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.
71. Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure - pattern-recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers 1983;22:2577-2637.
72. Pande VS, Rokhsar DS. Molecular dynamics simulations of unfolding and refolding of a beta-hairpin fragment of protein G. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96:9062-9067.
73. Duan Y, Kollman PA. Pathways to a protein folding intermediate observed in a 1-microsecond simulation in aqueous solution. Science 1998;282:740-744.
74. Baker D, Sali A. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science 2001;294:93-96.
75. 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.
76. Feig M, Brooks CL. Evaluating CASP4 predictions with physical energy functions. Proteins 2002;49:232-245.
77. Felts AK, Gallicchio E, Wallqvist A, Levy RM. Distinguishing native conformations of proteins from decoys with an effective free energy estimator based on the OPLS all-atom force field and the surface generalized born solvent model. Proteins 2002;48:404-422.
78. Lu H, Skolnick J. A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins 2001;44:223-232.
79. Eyal E, Najmanovich R, McConkey BJ, Edelman M, Sobolev V. Importance of solvent accessibility and contact surfaces in modeling side-chain conformations in proteins. J Comput Chem 2004;25:712-724.
80. Eyal E, Najmanovich R, Edelman M, Sobolev V. Protein side-chain rearrangement in regions of point mutations. Proteins 2003;50:272-282.
81. Jacobson MP, Friesner RA, Xiang ZX, Honig B. On the role of the crystal environment in determining protein side-chain conformations. J Mol Biol 2002;320:597-608.
82. Fan H, Mark AE, Zhu J, Honig B. Comparative study of generalized Born models: protein dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:6760-6764.
83. Lu H, Skolnick J. Application of statistical potentials to protein structure refinement from low resolution Ab initio models. Biopolymers 2003;70:575-584.
84. Kuhlman B, Dantas G, Ireton GC, Varani G, Stoddard BL, Baker D. Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 2003;302:1364-1368.