Local quality assessment in homology models using statistical potentials and support vector machines

Protein Science

Volumn 16, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 1557-1568

  Fasnacht, Marc ^a,b   Zhu, Jiang ^a   Honig, Barry ^a  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^b ACCELRYS INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Homology modeling; Model evaluation; Protein model; Protein structure prediction; Similarity measure; Statistical potential; Support vector machine

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GEOMETRY; NONHUMAN; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROTEINS; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY, PROTEIN;

EID: 34547576789     PISSN: 09618368     EISSN: 1469896X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1110/ps.072856307     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abagyan, R.A. and Totrov, M.M. 1997. Contact area difference (CAD): A robust measure to evaluate accuracy of protein models. J. Mol. Biol. 268: 678-685.
2. Berglund, A., Head, R.D., Welsh, E.A., and Marshall, G.R. 2004. ProVal: A protein-scoring function for the selection of native and near-native folds. Proteins 54: 289-302.
3. Buchete, N.V., Straub, J.E., and Thirumalai, D. 2004a. Orientation-dependent coarse-grained potentials derived by statistical analysis of molecular structural databases. Polymer 45: 597-608.
4. Buchete, N.V., Straub, J.E., and Thirumalai, D. 2004b. Orientational potentials extracted from protein structures improve native fold recognition. Protein Sci. 13: 862-874.
5. Casella, G. and Berger, R.L. 1990. Statistical inference. Duxbury Press, Belmont, California.
6. Colovos, C. and Yeates, T.O. 1993. Verification of protein structures - Patterns of nonbonded atomic interactions. Protein Sci. 2: 1511-1519.
7. Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. 1986. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat. Sci. 1: 54-75.
8. Eisenberg, D., Luthy, R., and Bowie, J.U. 1997. VERIFY3D: Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Methods Enzymol. 277: 396-404.
9. Eramian, D., Shen, M.Y., Devos, D., Melo, F., Sali, A., and Marti-Renom, M.A. 2006. A composite score for predicting errors in protein structure models. Protein Sci. 15: 1653-1666.
10. Fan, R.E., Chen, P.H., and Lin, C.J. 2005. Working set selection using the second order information for training SVM. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 6: 1889-1918.
11. Fang, Q.J. and Shortle, D. 2005. A consistent set of statistical potentials for quantifying local side-chain and backbone interactions. Proteins 60: 90-96.
12. Feig, M. and Brooks, C.L. 2002. Evaluating CASP4 predictions with physical energy functions. Proteins 49: 232-245.
13. Felts, A.K., Gallicchio, E., Wallqvist, A., and Levy, R.M. 2002. 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: 404-422.
14. Hamelryck, T. 2005. An amino acid has two sides: A new 2D measure provides a different view of solvent exposure. Proteins 59: 38-48.
15. Jacobson, M. and Sali, A. 2004. Comparative protein structure modeling and its applications to drug discovery. In Annual reports in medicinal chemistry, Vol. 39, pp. 259-276. Elsevier Academic Press Inc, San Diego, CA.
16. John, B. and Sali, A. 2003. Comparative protein structure modeling by iterative alignment, model building, and model assessment. Nucleic Acids Res. 31: 3982-3992.
17. Jones, D.T. 1999. Protein secondary structure prediction based on positionspecific scoring matrices. J. Mol. Biol. 292: 195-202.
18. Kabsch, W. and Sander, C. 1983. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers 22: 2577-2637.
19. Kleywegt, G.J. 2000. Validation of protein crystal structures. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr. 56: 249-265.
20. Kortemme, T., Morozov, A.V., and Baker, D. 2003. An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. J. Mol. Biol. 326: 1239-1259.
21. Lazaridis, T. and Karplus, M. 1999. Discrimination of the native from misfolded protein models with an energy function including implicit solvation. J. Mol. Biol. 288: 477-487.
22. Lee, M.C. and Duan, Y. 2004. 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: 620-634.
23. Lema, M.A. and Echave, J. 2005. Assessing local structural perturbations in proteins. BMC Bioinformatics doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-6-226.
24. Lovell, S.C., Davis, I.W., Adrendall, W.B., de Bakker, P.I.W., Word, J.M., Prisant, M.G., Richardson, J.S., and Richardson, D.C. 2003. Structure validation by Cα geometry: φ,ψ, and Cβ deviation. Proteins 50: 437-450.
25. Lu, H. and Skolnick, J. 2001. A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins 44: 223-232.
26. Luthy, R., Bowie, J.U., and Eisenberg, D. 1992. Assessment of protein models with 3-dimensional profiles. Nature 356: 83-85.
27. Maiorov, V. and Abagyan, R. 1998. Energy strain in three-dimensional protein structures. Folding Des. 3: 259-269.
28. Marti-Renom, M.A., Madhusudhan, M.S., Fiser, A., Rost, B., and Sali, A. 2002. Reliability of assessment of protein structure prediction methods. Structure 10: 435-440.
29. McConkey, B.J., Sobolev, V., and Edelman, M. 2003. Discrimination of native protein structures using atom-atom contact scoring. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100: 3215-3220.
30. Melo, F. and Feytmans, E. 1998. Assessing protein structures with a non-local atomic interaction energy. J. Mol. Biol. 277: 1141-1152.
31. Mihalek, I., Res, I., Yao, H., and Lichtarge, O. 2003. Combining inference from evolution and geometric probability in protein structure evaluation. J. Mol. Biol. 331: 263-279.
32. Moult, J., Fidelis, K., Zemla, A., and Hubbard, T. 2003. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP) - Round V. Proteins 53: 334-339.
33. Moult, J., Fidelis, K., Rost, B., Hubbard, T., and Tramontano, A. 2005. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP) - Round 6. Proteins 61: 3-7.
34. Nemethy, G., Gibson, K.D., Palmer, K.A., Yoon, C.N., Paterlini, G., Zagari, A., Rumsey, S., and Scheraga, H.A. 1992. Energy parameters in polypeptides. 10. Improved geometrical parameters and nonbonded interactions for use in the ECEPP/3 algorithm, with application to proline-containing peptides. J. Phys. Chem. 96: 6472-6484.
35. Park, B.H., Huang, E.S., and Levitt, M. 1997. Factors affecting the ability of energy functions to discriminate correct from incorrect folds. J. Mol. Biol. 266: 831-846.
36. Petrey, D. and Honig, B. 2000. Free energy determinants of tertiary structure and the evaluation of protein models. Protein Sci. 9: 2181-2191.
37. Petrey, D. and Honig, B. 2005. Protein structure prediction: Inroads to biology. Mol. Cell 20: 811-819.
38. Petrey, D., Xiang, Z.X., Tang, C.L., Xie, L., Gimpelev, M., Mitros, T., Soto, C.S., Goldsmith-Fischman, S., Kernytsky, A., Schlessinger, A., et al. 2003. Using multiple structure alignments, fast model building, and energetic analysis in fold recognition and homology modeling. Proteins 53: 430-435.
39. Pettitt, C.S., McGuffin, L.J., and Jones, D.T. 2005. Improving sequence-based fold recognition by using 3D model quality assessment. Bioinformatics 21: 3509-3515.
40. Rojnuckarin, A. and Subramaniam, S. 1999. Knowledge-based interaction potentials for proteins. Proteins 36: 54-67.
41. Sali, A. and Blundell, T.L. 1993. Comparative modelling by satisfaction of spatial constraints. J. Mol. Biol. 234: 779-815.
42. Samudrala, R. and Moult, J. 1998. An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 275: 895-916.
43. Shindyalov, I.N. and Bourne, P.E. 1998. Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. Protein Eng. 11: 739-747.
44. Siew, N., Elofsson, A., Rychlewski, L., and Fischer, D. 2000. MaxSub: An automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality. Bioinformatics 16: 776-785.
45. Sippl, M.J. 1993. Recognition of errors in 3-dimensional structures of proteins. Proteins 17: 355-362.
46. Sippl, M.J. 1995. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 5: 229-235.
47. Summa, C.M., Levitt, M., and DeGrado, W.F. 2005. An atomic environment potential for use in protein structure prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 352: 986-1001.
48. Tosatto, S.C.E. 2005. The Victor/FRST function for model quality estimation. J. Comput. Biol. 12: 1316-1327.
49. Wallin, S., Farwer, J., and Bastolla, U. 2003. Testing similarity measures with continuous and discrete protein models. Proteins 50: 144-157.
50. Wallner, B. and Elofsson, A. 2003. Can correct protein models be identified? Protein Sci. 12: 1073-1086.
51. Wallner, B. and Elofsson, A. 2006. Identification of correct regions in protein models using structural, alignment and consensus information. Protein Sci. 15: 900-913.
52. Wallqvist, A., Gallicchio, E., Felts, A.K., and Levy, R.M. 2002. Detecting native protein folds among large decoy sets with the OPLS all-atom potential and the surface generalized born solvent model. In Computational methods for protein folding, pp. 459-486. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
53. Zemla, A. 2003. LGA: A method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 31: 3370-3374.
54. Zhang, Y. and Skolnick, J. 2004. Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins 57: 702-710.
55. Zhou, H.Y. and Zhou, Y.Q. 2002. Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction. Protein Sci. 11: 2714-2726.
56. Zhou, H.Y. and Zhou, Y.Q. 2004. Single-body residue-level knowledge-based energy score combined with sequence-profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition. Proteins 55: 1005-1013.
57. Zhou, H.Y. and Zhou, Y.Q. 2005. Fold recognition by combining sequence profiles derived from evolution and from depth-dependent structural alignment of fragments. Proteins 58: 321-328.
58. Zhu, J., Xie, L., and Honig, B. 2006. Structural refinement of protein segments containing secondary structure elements: Local sampling, knowledge-based potentials, and clustering. Proteins 65: 463-479.