Potential energy functions for protein design

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 199-204

  Boas, F Edward ^a   Harbury, Pehr B ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HYDROGEN; PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ENERGY; HYDROGEN BOND; HYDROPHOBICITY; MODEL; MOLECULAR MECHANICS; POLARIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ALGORITHMS; DRUG DESIGN; HYDROGEN BONDING; HYDROPHOBICITY; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; QUANTUM THEORY; SOLVENTS; THERMODYNAMICS; WATER;

EID: 34147169516     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2007.03.006     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Mackerell Jr. A.D. Empirical force fields for biological macromolecules: overview and issues. J Comput Chem 25 (2004) 1584-1604
2. Jorgensen W.L., and Tirado-Rives J. Potential energy functions for atomic-level simulations of water and organic and biomolecular systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 6665-6670
3. Gordon D.B., Marshall S.A., and Mayo S.L. Energy functions for protein design. Curr Opin Struct Biol 9 (1999) 509-513
4. Pokala N., and Handel T.M. Review: protein design - where we were, where we are, where we're going. J Struct Biol 134 (2001) 269-281
5. Lazaridis T., and Karplus M. Effective energy functions for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 10 (2000) 139-145
6. Mohanty D., Dominy B.N., Kolinski A., Brooks III C.L., and Skolnick J. Correlation between knowledge-based and detailed atomic potentials: application to the unfolding of the GCN4 leucine zipper. Proteins 35 (1999) 447-452
7. Ben-Naim A. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: Are these meaningful potentials?. J Chem Phys 107 (1997) 3698-3706
8. Simons K.T., Kooperberg C., Huang E., and Baker D. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J Mol Biol 268 (1997) 209-225
9. Dehouck Y., Gilis D., and Rooman M. A new generation of statistical potentials for proteins. Biophys J 90 (2006) 4010-4017
10. Kortemme T., and Baker D. A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein-protein complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99 (2002) 14116-14121
11. Kortemme T., Joachimiak L.A., Bullock A.N., Schuler A.D., Stoddard B.L., and Baker D. Computational redesign of protein-protein interaction specificity. Nat Struct Mol Biol 11 (2004) 371-379
12. Kuhlman B., Dantas G., Ireton G.C., Varani G., Stoddard B.L., and Baker D. Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 302 (2003) 1364-1368
13. Looger L.L., Dwyer M.A., Smith J.J., and Hellinga H.W. Computational design of receptor and sensor proteins with novel functions. Nature 423 (2003) 185-190
14. MacKerell A.D., Bashford D., Bellott M., Dunbrack R.L., Evanseck J.D., Field M.J., Fischer S., Gao J., Guo H., Ha S., et al. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J Phys Chem B 102 (1998) 3586-3616
15. Dahiyat B.I., Gordon D.B., and Mayo S.L. Automated design of the surface positions of protein helices. Protein Sci 6 (1997) 1333-1337
16. Looger L.L., and Hellinga H.W. Generalized dead-end elimination algorithms make large-scale protein side-chain structure prediction tractable: implications for protein design and structural genomics. J Mol Biol 307 (2001) 429-445
17. Dwyer M.A., Looger L.L., and Hellinga H.W. Computational design of a biologically active enzyme. Science 304 (2004) 1967-1971
18. Wisz M.S., and Hellinga H.W. An empirical model for electrostatic interactions in proteins incorporating multiple geometry-dependent dielectric constants. Proteins 51 (2003) 360-377
19. Lazaridis T., and Karplus M. Effective energy function for proteins in solution. Proteins 35 (1999) 133-152
20. Kortemme T., Morozov A.V., and Baker D. An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. J Mol Biol 326 (2003) 1239-1259
21. Dahiyat B.I., and Mayo S.L. Probing the role of packing specificity in protein design. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94 (1997) 10172-10177
22. Chothia C. Hydrophobic bonding and accessible surface area in proteins. Nature 248 (1974) 338-339
23. Street A.G., and Mayo S.L. Pairwise calculation of protein solvent-accessible surface areas. Fold Des 3 (1998) 253-258
24. Choudhury N., and Pettitt B.M. On the mechanism of hydrophobic association of nanoscopic solutes. J Am Chem Soc 127 (2005) 3556-3567
25. Wagoner J.A., and Baker N.A. Assessing implicit models for nonpolar mean solvation forces: the importance of dispersion and volume terms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103 (2006) 8331-8336. The authors developed an alternative to the standard solvent-accessible surface-area model of non-polar solvation energies. Their model accurately predicts non-polar solvation forces from explicit solvent simulations.
26. Eisenberg D., and McLachlan A.D. Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature 319 (1986) 199-203
27. Honig B., Sharp K., and Yang A.S. Macroscopic models of aqueous-solutions - biological and chemical applications. J Phys Chem 97 (1993) 1101-1109
28. Marshall S.A., Vizcarra C.L., and Mayo S.L. One- and two-body decomposable Poisson-Boltzmann methods for protein design calculations. Protein Sci 14 (2005) 1293-1304
29. Bashford D., and Case D.A. Generalized Born models of macromolecular solvation effects. Annu Rev Phys Chem 51 (2000) 129-152
30. Pokala N., and Handel T.M. Energy functions for protein design: adjustment with protein-protein complex affinities, models for the unfolded state, and negative design of solubility and specificity. J Mol Biol 347 (2005) 203-227
31. Lee M.S., Feig M., Salsbury Jr. F.R., and Brooks III C.L. New analytic approximation to the standard molecular volume definition and its application to generalized Born calculations. J Comput Chem 24 (2003) 1348-1356
32. Yu Z., Jacobson M.P., and Friesner R.A. What role do surfaces play in GB models? A new-generation of surface-generalized Born model based on a novel Gaussian surface for biomolecules. J Comput Chem 27 (2006) 72-89
33. Feig M., Onufriev A., Lee M.S., Im W., Case D.A., and Brooks III C.L. Performance comparison of generalized born and Poisson methods in the calculation of electrostatic solvation energies for protein structures. J Comput Chem 25 (2004) 265-284
34. Schymkowitz J.W., Rousseau F., Martins I.C., Ferkinghoff-Borg J., Stricher F., and Serrano L. Prediction of water and metal binding sites and their affinities by using the Fold-X force field. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 10147-10152
35. Jiang L., Kuhlman B., Kortemme T., and Baker D. A "solvated rotamer" approach to modeling water-mediated hydrogen bonds at protein-protein interfaces. Proteins 58 (2005) 893-904. The authors present a new approach to including explicit solvent in protein design calculations. They include solvent atoms in their rotamers and use this approach to recover sidechain identities at single positions in protein interfaces.
36. Morozov A.V., Kortemme T., Tsemekhman K., and Baker D. Close agreement between the orientation dependence of hydrogen bonds observed in protein structures and quantum mechanical calculations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 (2004) 6946-6951
37. Morozov A.V., and Kortemme T. Potential functions for hydrogen bonds in protein structure prediction and design. Adv Protein Chem 72 (2005) 1-38
38. Friesner R.A. Modeling polarization in proteins and protein-ligand complexes: Methods and preliminary results. Adv Protein Chem 72 (2006) 79-104
39. Maple J.R., Cao Y.X., Damm W.G., Halgren T.A., Kaminski G.A., Zhang L.Y., and Friesner R.A. A polarizable force field and continuum solvation methodology for modeling of protein-ligand interactions. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 1 (2005) 694-715
40. Friesner R.A. Ab initio quantum chemistry: methodology and applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 6648-6653
41. Cho A.E., Guallar V., Berne B.J., and Friesner R. Importance of accurate charges in molecular docking: quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) approach. J Comput Chem 26 (2005) 915-931
42. Clark L.A., Boriack-Sjodin P.A., Eldredge J., Fitch C., Friedman B., Hanf K.J., Jarpe M., Liparoto S.F., Li Y., Lugovskoy A., et al. Affinity enhancement of an in vivo matured therapeutic antibody using structure-based computational design. Protein Sci 15 (2006) 949-960. The authors used a variety of different design algorithms to optimize the affinity of an antibody-ligand interaction. The affinity was improved by an order of magnitude and the crystal structure shows that the design makes the predicted contacts.
43. Lazar G.A., Dang W., Karki S., Vafa O., Peng J.S., Hyun L., Chan C., Chung H.S., Eivazi A., Yoder S.C., et al. Engineered antibody Fc variants with enhanced effector function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103 (2006) 4005-4010
44. Ashworth J., Havranek J.J., Duarte C.M., Sussman D., Monnat Jr. R.J., Stoddard B.L., and Baker D. Computational redesign of endonuclease DNA binding and cleavage specificity. Nature 441 (2006) 656-659. In this remarkable paper, the authors redesigned the cleavage specificity of an endonuclease. The redesigned enzyme cleaves the new target sequence and its crystal structure matches the computational prediction.
45. Ambroggio X.I., and Kuhlman B. Computational design of a single amino acid sequence that can switch between two distinct protein folds. J Am Chem Soc 128 (2006) 1154-1161. The authors developed a design procedure for optimizing a single amino acid sequence for multiple target structures. They used this approach to design a protein that reversibly switches between two distinct protein folds upon a change in pH or cobalt concentration.