Hydrophobic Potential of Mean Force as a Solvation Function for Protein Structure Prediction

Structure

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 727-740

  Lin, Matthew S ^a   Fawzi, Nicolas Lux ^a   Head Gordon, Teresa ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of California at Berkeley   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; ENERGY; ENTROPY; HYDRATION; HYDROPHOBICITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SOLVATION; THERMAL ANALYSIS; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

ENTROPY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, SECONDARY; PROTEINS; SOLVENTS; WATER;

EID: 34249892163     PISSN: 09692126     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2007.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Andersen H.C. Molecular-dynamics simulations at constant pressure and-or temperature. J. Chem. Phys. 72 (1980) 2384-2393
2. Andrea T.A., Swope W.C., and Andersen H.C. The role of long ranged forces in determining the structure and properties of liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 79 (1983) 4576-4584
3. Anfinsen C.B. Principles that govern folding of protein chains. Science 181 (1973) 223-230
4. Baldwin R.L. Temperature-dependence of the hydrophobic interaction in protein folding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 83 (1986) 8069-8072
5. Berendsen H.J.C., Postma J.P.M., van Gunsteren W.F., and Hermans J. Interaction models for water in relation to protein hydration. In: Pullman B. (Ed). Intermolecular Forces (1981), D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 331-342
6. Berglund A., Head R.D., Welsh E.A., and Marshall G.R. ProVal: a protein-scoring function for the selection of native and near-native folds. Proteins 54 (2004) 289-302
7. Brooks B.R., Bruccoleri R.E., Olafson B.D., States D.J., Swaminathan S., and Karplus M. Charmm-a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J. Comput. Chem. 4 (1983) 187-217
8. Case D.A., Cheatham T.E., Darden T., Gohlke H., Luo R., Merz K.M., Onufriev A., Simmerling C., Wang B., and Woods R.J. The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. J. Comput. Chem. 26 (2005) 1668-1688
9. Chandler D. Interfaces and the driving force of hydrophobic assembly. Nature 437 (2005) 640-647
10. Chen B., Xing J.H., and Siepmann J.I. Development of polarizable water force fields for phase equilibrium calculations. J. Phys. Chem. B 104 (2000) 2391-2401
11. Chothia C. Hydrophobic bonding and accessible surface area in proteins. Nature 248 (1974) 338-339
12. Constanciel R., and Contreras R. Self-consistent field-theory of solvent effects representation by continuum models-introduction of desolvation contribution. Theor. Chim. Acta 65 (1984) 1-11
13. Cornell W.D., Cieplak P., Bayly C.I., Gould I.R., Merz K.M., Ferguson D.M., Spellmeyer D.C., Fox T., Caldwell J.W., and Kollman P.A. A 2nd generation force-field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic-acids, and organic-molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 117 (1995) 5179-5197
14. Crivelli S., Eskow E., Bader B., Lamberti V., Byrd R., Schnabel R., and Head-Gordon T. A physical approach to protein structure prediction. Biophys. J. 82 (2002) 36-49
15. Dehouck Y., Gilis D., and Rooman M. A new generation of statistical potentials for proteins. Biophys. J. 90 (2006) 4010-4017
16. Dill K.A. Dominant forces in protein folding. Biochemistry 29 (1990) 7133-7155
17. Dominy B.N., and Brooks C.L. Identifying native-like protein structures using physics-based potentials. J. Comput. Chem. 23 (2002) 147-160
18. Eisenberg D., and McLachlan A.D. Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature 319 (1986) 199-203
19. Fain B., Xia Y., and Levitt M. Determination of optimal Chebyshev-expanded hydrophobic discrimination function for globular proteins. IBM Journal Research and Development 45 (2001) 525-532
20. Feig M., and Brooks C.L. Evaluating CASP4 predictions with physical energy functions. Proteins 49 (2002) 232-245
21. Felts A.K., Gallicchio E., Wallqvist A., and Levy R.M. 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 48 (2002) 404-422
22. Gallicchio E., and Levy R.M. AGBNP: an analytic implicit solvent model suitable for molecular dynamics simulations and high-resolution modeling. J. Comput. Chem. 25 (2004) 479-499
23. Garcia A.E., and Sanbonmatsu K.Y. α-helical stabilization by side chain shielding of backbone hydrogen bonds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99 (2002) 2782-2787
24. Gatchell D.W., Dennis S., and Vajda S. Discrimination of near-native protein structures from misfolded models by empirical free energy functions. Proteins 41 (2000) 518-534
25. Gronenborn A.M., and Clore G.M. Structures of protein complexes by multidimensional heteronuclear magnetic-resonance spectroscopy. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 30 (1995) 351
26. Hasel W., Hendrickson T.F., and Still W.C. A rapid approximation to the solvent accessible surface areas of atoms. Tetrahdron Computer Methodology 1 (1988) 103-116
27. Hawkins G.D., Cramer C.J., and Truhlar D.G. Pairwise solute descreening of solute charges from a dielectric medium. Chem. Phys. Lett. 246 (1995) 122-129
28. Hawkins G.D., Cramer C.J., and Truhlar D.G. Parametrized models of aqueous free energies of solvation based on pairwise descreening of solute atomic charges from a dielectric medium. J. Phys. Chem. 100 (1996) 19824-19839
29. Head-Gordon T., Sorenson J.M., Pertsemlidis A., and Glaeser R.M. Differences in hydration structure near hydrophobic and hydrophilic amino acids. Biophys. J. 73 (1997) 2106-2115
30. Holm L., and Sander C. Evaluation of protein models by atomic solvation preference. J. Mol. Biol. 225 (1992) 93-105
31. Horn H.W., Swope W.C., Pitera J.W., Madura J.D., Dick T.J., Hura G.L., and Head-Gordon T. Development of an improved four-site water model for biomolecular simulations: TIP4P-Ew. J. Chem. Phys. 120 (2004) 9665-9678
32. Hornak V., Abel R., Okur A., Strockbine B., Roitberg A., and Simmerling C. Comparison of multiple amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters. Proteins 65 (2006) 712-725
33. Hsieh M.J., and Luo R. Physical scoring function based on AMBER force field and Poisson-Boltzmann implicit solvent for protein structure prediction. Proteins 56 (2004) 475-486
34. Hura G., Sorenson J.M., Glaeser R.M., and Head-Gordon T. Solution X-ray scattering as a probe of hydration-dependent structuring of aqueous solutions. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des. 17 (1999) 97-118
35. Jorgensen W.L., and Madura J.D. Temperature and size dependence for Monte-Carlo simulations of Tip4p water. Mol. Phys. 56 (1985) 1381-1392
36. Jorgensen W.L., Chandrasekhar J., Madura J.D., Impey R.W., and Klein M.L. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 79 (1983) 926-935
37. Jorgensen W.L., Maxwell D.S., and Tirado-Rives J. Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118 (1996) 11225-11236
38. Kaminski G.A., Friesner R.A., Tirado-Rives J., and Jorgensen W.L. Evaluation and reparametrization of the OPLS-AA force field for proteins via comparison with accurate quantum chemical calculations on peptides. J. Phys. Chem. B 105 (2001) 6474-6487
39. Kauzmann W. Some factors in the interpretation of protein denaturation. Adv. Protein Chem. 14 (1959) 1-63
40. Keasar C., and Levitt M. A novel approach to decoy set generation: designing a physical energy function having local minima with native structure characteristics. J. Mol. Biol. 329 (2003) 159-174
41. Lazaridis T., and Karplus M. Discrimination of the native from misfolded protein models with an energy function including implicit solvation. J. Mol. Biol. 288 (1999) 477-487
42. Lee B., and Richards F.M. Interpretation of protein structures-estimation of static accessibility. J. Mol. Biol. 55 (1971) 379
43. Lee M.R., and Kollman P.A. Free-energy calculations highlight differences in accuracy between X-ray and NMR structures and add value to protein structure prediction. Structure 9 (2001) 905-916
44. Lee M.C., and Duan Y. Distinguish protein decoys by using a scoring function based on a new AMBER force field, short molecular dynamics simulations, and the generalized born solvent model. Proteins 55 (2004) 620-634
45. Lee M.R., Tsai J., Baker D., and Kollman P.A. Molecular dynamics in the endgame of protein structure prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 313 (2001) 417-430
46. Liu D.C., and Nocedal J. On the limited memory Bfgs method for large-scale optimization. Math. Program. 45 (1989) 503-528
47. Liu P., Huang X.H., Zhou R.H., and Berne B.J. Observation of a dewetting transition in the collapse of the melittin tetramer. Nature 437 (2005) 159-162
48. 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
49. Mahoney M.W., and Jorgensen W.L. A five-site model for liquid water and the reproduction of the density anomaly by rigid, nonpolarizable potential functions. J. Chem. Phys. 112 (2000) 8910-8922
50. McConkey B.J., Sobolev V., and Edelman M. Discrimination of native protein structures using atom-atom contact scoring. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100 (2003) 3215-3220
51. Mitsutake A., Sugita Y., and Okamoto Y. Generalized-ensemble algorithms for molecular simulations of biopolymers. Biopolymers 60 (2001) 96-123
52. Momany F.A., Mcguire R.F., Burgess A.W., and Scheraga H.A. Energy parameters in polypeptides. 7. Geometric parameters, partial atomic charges, nonbonded interactions, hydrogen-bond interactions, and intrinsic torsional potentials for naturally occurring amino-acids. J. Phys. Chem. 79 (1975) 2361-2381
53. Mukherjee A., Bhimalapuram P., and Bagchi B. Orientation-dependent potential of mean force for protein folding. J. Chem. Phys. 123 (2005) 14901
54. Narang P., Bhushan K., Bose S., and Jayaram B. Protein structure evaluation using an all-atom energy based empirical scoring function. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 23 (2006) 385-406
55. Nemethy G., Pottle M.S., and Scheraga H.A. Energy parameters in polypeptides. 9. Updating of geometrical parameters, nonbonded interactions, and hydrogen-bond interactions for the naturally-occurring amino-acids. J. Phys. Chem. 87 (1983) 1883-1887
56. Novotny J., Bruccoleri R., and Karplus M. An analysis of incorrectly folded protein models-implications for structure predictions. J. Mol. Biol. 177 (1984) 787-818
57. Onufriev A., Bashford D., and Case D.A. Modification of the generalized Born model suitable for macromolecules. J. Phys. Chem. B 104 (2000) 3712-3720
58. Onufriev A., Bashford D., and Case D.A. Exploring protein native states and large-scale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model. Proteins 55 (2004) 383-394
59. Pande V.S., and Rokhsar D.S. Molecular dynamics simulations of unfolding and refolding of a beta-hairpin fragment of protein G. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96 (1999) 9062-9067
60. Park B., and Levitt M. Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near-native folds from well-constructed decoys. J. Mol. Biol. 258 (1996) 367-392
61. Pertsemlidis A., Saxena A.M., Soper A.K., Head-Gordon T., and Glaeser R.M. Direct evidence for modified solvent structure within the hydration shell of a hydrophobic amino acid. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93 (1996) 10769-10774
62. Pertsemlidis A., Soper A.K., Sorenson J.M., and Head-Gordon T. Evidence for microscopic, long-range hydration forces for a hydrophobic amino acid. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96 (1999) 481-486
63. Petrey D., and Honig B. Free energy determinants of tertiary structure and the evaluation of protein models. Protein Sci. 9 (2000) 2181-2191
64. Ponder J.W., and Case D.A. Force fields for protein simulations. Adv. Protein Chem. 66 (2003) 27-85
65. Pratt L.R., and Chandler D. Theory of hydrophobic effect. J. Chem. Phys. 67 (1977) 3683-3704
66. Press W.H., Flannery B.P., Teukolsky S.A., and Vetterling W.T. Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing. Second Edition (1992), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
67. Rick S.W. Simulations of ice and liquid water over a range of temperatures using the fluctuating charge model. J. Chem. Phys. 114 (2001) 2276-2283
68. Rick S.W. A reoptimization of the five-site water potential (TIP5P) for use with Ewald sums. J. Chem. Phys. 120 (2004) 6085-6093
69. Rick S.W., Stuart S.J., and Berne B.J. Dynamical fluctuating charge force-fields-application to liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 101 (1994) 6141-6156
70. Samudrala R., and Levitt M. Decoys 'R' Us: a database of incorrect conformations to improve protein structure prediction. Protein Sci. 9 (2000) 1399-1401
71. Scott W.R.P., Hunenberger P.H., Tironi I.G., Mark A.E., Billeter S.R., Fennen J., Torda A.E., Huber T., Kruger P., and van Gunsteren W.F. The GROMOS biomolecular simulation program package. J. Phys. Chem. A 103 (1999) 3596-3607
72. Sharp K.A., Nicholls A., Fine R.F., and Honig B. Reconciling the magnitude of the microscopic and macroscopic hydrophobic effects. Science 252 (1991) 106-109
73. Shen M.Y., and Sali A. Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci. 15 (2006) 2507-2524
74. Shrake A., and Rupley J.A. Environment and exposure to solvent of protein atoms-lysozyme and insulin. J. Mol. Biol. 79 (1973) 351-371
75. Simmerling C., Strockbine B., and Roitberg A.E. All-atom structure prediction and folding simulations of a stable protein. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124 (2002) 11258-11259
76. 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
77. Simons K.T., Bonneau R., Ruczinski I., and Baker D. Ab initio protein structure prediction of CASP III targets using ROSETTA. Proteins Suppl. 3 (1999) 171-176
78. Sippl M.J., Nemethy G., and Scheraga H.A. Intermolecular potentials from crystal data. 6. Determination of empirical potentials for O-H=O=C hydrogen-bonds from packing configurations. J. Phys. Chem. 88 (1984) 6231-6233
79. Sorenson J.M., Hura G., Soper A.K., Pertsemlidis A., and Head-Gordon T. Determining the role of hydration forces in protein folding. J. Phys. Chem. B 103 (1999) 5413-5426
80. Spolar R.S., Ha J.H., and Record Jr. M.T. Hydrophobic effect in protein folding and other noncovalent processes involving proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86 (1989) 8382-8385
81. Still W.C., Tempczyk A., Hawley R.C., and Hendrickson T. Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 112 (1990) 6127-6129
82. Sugita Y., and Okamoto Y. Replica-exchange molecular dynamics method for protein folding. Chem. Phys. Lett. 314 (1999) 141-151
83. Swanson J.M., Henchman R.H., and McCammon J.A. Revisiting free energy calculations: a theoretical connection to MM/PBSA and direct calculation of the association free energy. Biophys. J. 86 (2004) 67-74
84. ten Wolde P.R. Hydrophobic interactions: an overview. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 14 (2002) 9445-9460
85. Tsai J., Bonneau R., Morozov A.V., Kuhlman B., Rohl C.A., and Baker D. An improved protein decoy set for testing energy functions for protein structure prediction. Proteins 53 (2003) 76-87
86. van der Vaart A., Bursulaya B.D., Brooks C.L., and Merz K.M. Are many-body effects important in protein folding?. J. Phys. Chem. B 104 (2000) 9554-9563
87. Vasquez M., Nemethy G., and Scheraga H.A. Conformational energy calculations on polypeptides and proteins. Chem. Rev. 94 (1994) 2183-2239
88. Vorobjev Y.N., Almagro J.C., and 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 32 (1998) 399-413
89. 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
90. Wang J.M., Cieplak P., and Kollman P.A. How well does a restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) model perform in calculating conformational energies of organic and biological molecules?. J. Comput. Chem. 21 (2000) 1049-1074
91. Wang K., Fain B., Levitt M., and Samudrala R. Improved protein structure selection using decoy-dependent discriminatory functions. BMC Struct. Biol. 4 (2004) 8
92. Wang Z.X., Zhang W., Wu C., Lei H.X., Cieplak P., and Duan Y. Strike a balance: optimization of backbone torsion parameters of AMBER polarizable force field for simulations of proteins and peptides. J. Comput. Chem. 27 (2006) 781-790
93. Weiner S.J., Kollman P.A., Case D.A., Singh U.C., Ghio C., Alagona G., Profeta S., and Weiner P. A new force-field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic-acids and proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106 (1984) 765-784
94. Weiner S.J., Kollman P.A., Nguyen D.T., and Case D.A. An all atom force-field for simulations of proteins and nucleic-acids. J. Comput. Chem. 7 (1986) 230-252
95. Zhang J.F., and Liu J.S. On side-chain conformational entropy of proteins. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2 (2006) 1586-1591
96. Zhu J., Zhu Q.Q., Shi Y.Y., and Liu H.Y. How well can we predict native contacts in proteins based on decoy structures and their energies?. Proteins 52 (2003) 598-608