TASSER-lite: An automated tool for protein comparative modeling

Biophysical Journal

Volumn 91, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 4180-4190

  Pandit, Shashi Bhushan ^a   Zhang, Yang ^a   Skolnick, Jeffrey ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 33845365051     PISSN: 00063495     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.106.084293     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Skolnick, J., and J. S. Fetrow. 2000. From genes to protein structure and function: novel applications of computational approaches in the genomic era. Trends Biotechnol. 18:34-39.
2. Baker, D., and A. Sali. 2001. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science. 294:93-96.
3. Murzin, A. G. 2001. Progress in protein structure prediction. Nat. Struct. Biol. 8:110-112.
4. Guex, N., and M. C. Peitsch. 1997. SWISS-MODEL and the Swiss-PdbViewer: an environment for comparative protein modeling. Electrophoresis. 18:2714-2723.
5. Sanchez, R., and A. Sali. 1997. Advances in comparative protein-structure modelling. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 7:206-214.
6. Bowie, J. U., R. Luthy, and D. Eisenberg. 1991. A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science. 253:164-170.
7. Panchenko, A. R., A. Marchler-Bauer, and S. H. Bryant. 2000. Combination of threading potentials and sequence profiles improves fold recognition. J. Mol. Biol. 296:1319-1331.
8. Skolnick, J., and D. Kihara. 2001. Defrosting the frozen approximation: PROSPECTOR - a new approach to threading. Proteins. 42:319-331.
9. Pillardy, J., C. Czaplewski, A. Liwo, J. Lee, D. R. Ripoll, R. Kazmierkiewicz, S. Oldziej, W. J. Wedemeyer, K. D. Gibson, Y. A. Arnautova, J. Saunders, Y. J. Ye, and H. A. Scheraga. 2001. Recent improvements in prediction of protein structure by global optimization of a potential energy function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 98:2329-2333.
10. Simons, K. T., C. Strauss, and D. Baker. 2001. Prospects for ab initio protein structural genomics. J. Mol. Biol. 306:1191-1199.
11. Kolinski, A., and J. Skolnick. 1998. Assembly of protein structure from sparse experimental data: an efficient Monte Carlo model. Proteins. 32:475-494.
12. Holm, L., and C. Sander. 1996. Mapping the protein universe. Science. 273:595-603.
13. Chothia, C., and A. M. Lesk. 1986. The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. EMBO J. 5:823-826.
14. Marti-Renom, M. A., A. C. Stuart, A. Fiser, R. Sanchez, F. Melo, and A. Sali. 2000. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 29:291-325.
15. Zhang, Y., and J. Skolnick. 2005. The protein structure prediction problem could be solved using the current PDB library. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 102:1029-1034.
16. Blundell, T. L., B. L. Sibanda, M. J. Sternberg, and J. M. Thornton. 1987. Knowledge-based prediction of protein structures and the design of novel molecules. Nature. 326:347-352.
17. Srinivasan, N., and T. L. Blundell. 1993. An evaluation of the performance of an automated procedure for comparative modelling of protein tertiary structure. Protein Eng. 6:501-512.
18. Claessens, M., E. Van Cutsem, I. Lasters, and S. Wodak. 1989. Modelling the polypeptide backbone with 'spare parts' from known protein structures. Protein Eng. 2:335-345.
19. Jones, T. A., and S. Thirup. 1986. Using known substructures in protein model building and crystallography. EMBO J. 5:819-822.
20. Levitt, M. 1992. Accurate modeling of protein conformation by automatic segment matching. J. Mol. Biol. 226:507-533.
21. Aszodi, A., and W. R. Taylor. 1996. Homology modeling by distance geometry. Fold. Des. 1:325-334.
22. Sali, A., and T. L. Blundell. 1993. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J. Mol. Biol. 234:779-815.
23. Srinivasan, S., C. J. March, and S. Sudarsanam. 1993. An automated method for modeling proteins on known templates using distance geometry. Protein Sci. 2:277-289.
24. Sali, A., L. Potterton, F. Yuan, H. van Vlijmen, and M. Karplus. 1995. Evaluation of comparative protein modeling by MODELLER. Proteins. 23:318-326.
25. Fiser, A., R. K. Do, and A. Sali. 2000. Modeling of loops in protein structures. Protein Sci. 9:1753-1773.
26. Tramontano, A., and V. Morea. 2003. Exploiting evolutionary relationships for predicting protein structures. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 84:756-762.
27. Zhang, Y., and J. Skolnick. 2004. Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on a genomic scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 101:7594-7599.
28. Skolnick, J., D. Kihara, and Y. Zhang. 2004. Development and large scale benchmark testing of the PROSPECTOR_3 threading algorithm. Proteins. 56:502-518.
29. Zhang, Y., and J. Skolnick. 2004. Tertiary structure predictions on a comprehensive benchmark of medium to large size proteins. Biophys. J. 87:2647-2655.
30. Zhang, Y., A. K. Arakaki, and J. Skolnick. 2005. TASSER: an automated method for the prediction of protein tertiary structures in CASP6. Proteins. 61(Suppl. 7):91-98.
31. Berman, H. M., J. Westbrook, Z. Feng, G. Gilliland, T. N. Bhat, H. Weissig, I. N. Shindyalov, and P. E. Bourne. 2000. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28:235-242.
32. Alexandrov, N., and I. Shindyalov. 2003. PDP: protein domain parser. Bioinformatics. 19:429-430.
33. Zhang, Y., A. Kolinski, and J. Skolnick. 2003. TOUCHSTONE II: a new approach to ab initio protein structure prediction. Biophys. J. 85:1145-1164.
34. Skolnick, J., Y. Zhang, A. K. Arakaki, A. Kolinski, M. Boniecki, A. Szilagyi, and D. Kihara. 2003. TOUCHSTONE: a unified approach to protein structure prediction. Proteins. 53(Suppl. 6):469-479.
35. Li, W., Y. Zhang, D. Kihara, Y. J. Huang, D. Zheng, G. T. Montelione, A. Kolinski, and J. Skolnick. 2003. TOUCHSTONEX: protein structure prediction with sparse NMR data. Proteins. 53:290-306.
36. Zhang, Y., and J. Skolnick. 2004. SPICKER: a clustering approach to identify near-native protein folds. J. Comput. Chem. 25:865-871.
37. Jones, D. T. 1999. Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. J. Mol. Biol. 292:195-202.
38. Zhang, Y., D. Kihara, and J. Skolnick. 2002. Local energy landscape flattening: parallel hyperbolic Monte Carlo sampling of protein folding. Proteins. 48:192-201.
39. Zhang, Y., and J. Skolnick. 2004. Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins. 57:702-710.
40. Murzin, A. G., S. E. Brenner, T. Hubbard, and C. Chothia. 1995. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J. Mol. Biol. 247:536-540.
41. Kabash, W. 1978. A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Acta Crystallogr. A32:922-923.
42. Siew, N., A. Elofsson, L. Rychlewski, and D. Fischer. 2000. MaxSub: an automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality. Bioinformatics. 16:776-785.
43. Zhang, Y., and J. Skolnick. 2005. TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score. Nucleic Acids Res. 33:2302-2309.