High-resolution structure prediction and the crystallographic phase problem

Nature

Volumn 450, Issue 7167, 2007, Pages 259-264

  Qian, Bin ^a   Raman, Srivatsan ^a   Das, Rhiju ^a   Bradley, Philip ^a   McCoy, Airlie J ^b   Read, Randy J ^b   Baker, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRYSTALLOGRAPHY; MODELING; PREDICTION; PROTEIN;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; ATOM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFORMATION; DATA BASE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

EID: 36049029967     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature06249     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Misura, K. M. & Baker, D. Progress and challenges in high-resolution refinement of protein structure models. Proteins 59, 15-29 (2005).
2. Pieper, U. et al. MODBASE: a database of annotated comparative protein structure models and associated resources. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D291-D295 (2006).
3. Moult, J. A decade of CASP: progress, bottlenecks and prognosis in protein structure prediction. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 15, 285-289 (2005).
4. Schwarzenbacher, R., Godzik, A., Grzechnik, S. K. & Jaroszewski, L. The importance of alignment accuracy for molecular replacement. Acta Crystallogr. D 60, 1229-1236 (2004).
5. Giorgetti, A., Raimondo, D., Miele, A. E. & Tramontano, A. Evaluating the usefulness of protein structure models for molecular replacement. Bioinformatics 21 (suppl. 2), ii72-ii76 (2005).
6. Chen, Y. W., Dodson, E. J. & Kleywegt, G. J. Does NMR mean "not for molecular replacement"? Using NMR-based search models to solve protein crystal structures. Structure 8, R213-R220 (2000).
7. Strop, P., Brzustowicz, M. R. & Brunger, A. T. Ab initio molecular-replacement phasing for symmetric helical membrane proteins. Acta Crystallogr. D 63, 188-196 (2007).
8. Rossmann, M. G. Ab initio phase determination and phase extension using noncrystallographic symmetry. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 5, 650-655 (1995).
9. Kuhlman, B. et al. Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 302, 1364-1368 (2003).
10. McCoy, A. J. et al. Phaser crystallographic software. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 40, 658-674 (2007).
11. Perrakis, A., Morris, R. & Lamzin, V. S. Automated protein model building combined with iterative structure refinement. Nature Struct. Biol. 6, 458-463 (1999).
12. Terwilliger, T. C. Automated main-chain model building by template matching and iterative fragment extension. Acta Crystallogr. D 59, 38-44 (2003).
13. Bradley, P., Misura, K. M. & Baker, D. Toward high-resolution de novo structure prediction for small proteins. Science 309, 1868-1871 (2005).
14. Rohl, C. A., Strauss, C. E., Misura, K. M. & Baker, D. Protein structure prediction using Rosetta. Methods Enzymol. 383, 66-93 (2004).
15. Leaver-Fay, A., Kuhlman, B. & Snoeyink, J. Rotamer-pair energy calculations using a Trie data structure. In Algorithms in Bioinformatics (eds Casadio, R. & Myers, G.) 389 (Springer, Berlin, 2005).
16. Wales, D. J. & Scheraga, H. A. Global optimization of clusters, crystals, and biomolecules. Science 285, 1368-1372 (1999).
17. Wallner, B. & Elofsson, A. Identification of correct regions in protein models using structural, alignment, and consensus information. Protein Sci. 15, 900-913 (2006).
18. Glover, F. & Laguna, M. Tabu Search (Kluwer, Norwell, Massachusetts, 1997).
19. Lee, J., Liwo, A. & Scheraga, H. A. Energy-based de novo protein folding by conformational space annealing and an off-lattice united-residue force field: application to the 10-55 fragment of staphylococcal protein A and to apo calbindin D9K. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 2025-2030 (1999).
20. Doreleijers, J. F., Rullmann, J. A. & Kaptein, R. Quality assessment of NMR structures: a statistical survey. J. Mol. Biol. 281, 149-164 (1998).
21. Grishaev, A. & Bax, A. An empirical backbone-backbone hydrogen-bonding potential in proteins and its applications to NMR structure refinement and validation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126, 7281-7292 (2004).
22. Rieping, W., Habeck, M. & Nilges, M. Inferential structure determination. Science 309, 303-306 (2005).
23. Zemla, A. LGA: A method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 3370-3374 (2003).
24. Lovell, S. C. et al. Structure validation by Cα geometry: φ, ψ and Cβ deviation. Proteins 50, 437-450 (2003).
25. Das, R. et al. Structure prediction for CASP7 targets using extensive all-atom refinement with Rosetta@home. Proteins doi:10.1002/prot.21636 (25 September 2007).
26. Berman, H., Henrick, K., Nakamura, H. & Markley, J. L. The worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB): ensuring a single, uniform archive of PDB data. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D301-D303 (2007).
27. Andrade, S. L., Dickmanns, A., Ficner, R. & Einsle, O. Crystal structure of the archaeal ammonium transporter Amt-1 from Archaeoglobus fulgidus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 14994-14999 (2005).
28. Pannu, N. S. & Read, R. J. Improved structure refinement through maximum likelihood. Acta Crystallogr. A 52, 659-668 (1996).
29. Dauter, Z. New approaches to high-throughput phasing. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12, 674-678 (2002).
30. Englander, J. J. et al. Protein structure change studied by hydrogen-deuterium exchange, functional labeling, and mass spectrometry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 7057-7062 (2003).
31. Young, M. M. et al. High throughput protein fold identification by using experimental constraints derived from intramolecular cross-links and mass spectrometry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 5802-5806 (2000).
32. Takamoto, K. & Chance, M. R. Radiolytic protein footprinting with mass spectrometry to probe the structure of macromolecular complexes. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 35, 251-276 (2006).
33. Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 2302-2309 (2005).
34. Ortiz, A. R., Strauss, C. E. & Olmea, O. MAMMOTH (matching molecular models obtained from theory): an automated method for model comparison. Protein Sci. 11, 2606-2621 (2002).
35. Simons, K. T., Kooperberg, C., Huang, E. & Baker, D. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J. Mol. Biol. 268, 209-225 (1997).
36. Canutescu, A. A. & Dunbrack, R. L. Jr. Cyclic coordinate descent: A robotics algorithm for protein loop closure. Protein Sci. 12, 963-972 (2003).
37. Lazaridis, T. & Karplus, M. Effective energy function for proteins in solution. Proteins 35, 133-152 (1999).
38. Dunbrack, R. L. Jr & Cohen, F. E. Bayesian statistical analysis of protein side-chain rotamer preferences. Protein Sci. 6, 1661-1681 (1997).
39. Engh, R. A. & Huber, R. Accurate bond and angle parameters for X-ray protein structure refinement. Acta Crystallogr. A 47, 392-400 (1991).
40. Wang, C., Schueler-Furman, O. & Baker, D. Improved side-chain modeling for protein-protein docking. Protein Sci. 14, 1328-1339 (2005).
41. Li, Z. & Scheraga, H. A. Monte Carlo-minimization approach to the multipleminima problem in protein folding. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 84, 6611-6615 (1987).
42. Garbuzynskiy, S. O., Melnik, B. S., Lobanov, M. Y., Finkelstein, A. V. & Galzitskaya, O. V. Comparison of X-ray and NMR structures: is there a systematic difference in residue contacts between X-ray- and NMR-resolved protein structures? Proteins 60, 139-147 (2005).
43. Ginalski, K., Elofsson, A., Fischer, D. & Rychlewski, L. 3D-Jury: a simple approach to improve protein structure predictions. Bioinformatics 19, 1015-1018 (2003).
44. Chivian, D. &Baker, D. Homology modeling using parametric alignment ensemble generation with consensus and energy-based model selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, e112 (2006).
45. Sali, A. & Blundell, T. L. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J. Mol. Biol. 234, 779-815 (1993).
46. Bonneau, R., Strauss, C. E. & Baker, D. Improving the performance of Rosetta using multiple sequence alignment information and global measures of hydrophobic core formation. Proteins 43, 1-11 (2001).
47. Moult, J., Fidelis, K., Rost, B., Hubbard, T. & Tramontano, A. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-round 6. Proteins 61 (suppl. 7), 3-7 (2005).
48. Petsko, G. A. The grail problem. Genome Biol. 1, COMMENT002 (2000).
49. Plewczynski, D., Pas, J., Von Grotthuss, M. & Rychlewski, L. Comparison of proteins based on segments structural similarity. Acta Biochim. Pol. 51, 161-172 (2004).
50. Kuhlman, B. & Baker, D. Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 10383-10388 (2000).