An efficient conformational sampling method for homology modeling

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 175-188

  Han, Rongsheng ^a,c   Leo Macias, Alexandra ^a,d   Zerbino, Daniel ^a,e   Bastolla, Ugo ^a   Contreras Moreira, Bruno ^b   Ortiz, Angel R ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTO DE CIENCIAS FÍSICAS   (Mexico)

^c NORTH CHINA ELECTRIC POWER UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY   (Germany)

^e EUROPEAN BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Comparative modeling; Conformational search; Multiple structure analysis; Normal mode analysis; Principal components analysis; Replica exchange Monte Carlo

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR MODEL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FAMILY; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; VIBRATION;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, PROTEIN; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; METHODS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY, AMINO ACID;

EID: 40549128351     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21672     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Chandonia JM. Brenner SE. The impact of structural genomics: expectations and outcomes. Science 2006;311:347-351.
2. Fiser A, Feig M, Brooks CL, IIIrd, Sali A. Evolution and physics in comparative protein structure modeling. Acc Chem Res 2002;35:413-421.
3. Marti-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2000;29:291-325.
4. Ginalski K. Comparative modeling for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006;16:172-177.
5. Sanchez R, Pieper U, Melo F, Eswar N, Marti-Renom MA, Madhusudhan MS, Mirkovic N, Sali A. Protein structure modeling for structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol 2000;7(Suppl):986-990.
6. Schueler-Furman O, Wang C, Bradley P, Misura K, Baker D. Progress in modeling of protein structures and interactions. Science 2005;310:638-642.
7. Topf M, Sali A. Combining electron microscopy and comparative protein structure modeling. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2005;15:578-585.
8. Tramontano A. Worth the effort. An account of the Seventh Meeting of the Worldwide Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction. FEBS J 2007;274:1651-1654.
9. Moult J. A decade of CASP: progress, bottlenecks and prognosis in protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2005;15:285-289.
10. Moult J, Fidelis K, Rost B, Hubbard T, Tramontano A. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-round 6. Proteins 2005;61(Suppl 7):3-7.
11. Tramontano A, Morea V. Assessment of homology-based predictions in CASP5. Proteins 2003;53 (Suppl 6):352-368.
12. Venclovas C, Zemla A, Fidelis K, Moult J. Comparison of performance in successive CASP experiments. Proteins 2001;45(Suppl 5):163-170.
13. Moult J, Fidelis K, Zemla A, Hubbard T. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-round V. Proteins 2003;53 (Suppl 6):334-339.
14. Valencia A. Protein refinement: a new challenge for CASP in its 10th anniversary. Bioinformatics 2005;21:277.
15. Tress M, Ezkurdia I, Grana O, Lopez G, Valencia A. Assessment of predictions submitted for the CASP6 comparative modeling category. Proteins 2005;61(Suppl 7):27-45.
16. McGovern SL, Shoichet BK. Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo, and modeled conformations of enzymes. J Med Chem 2003;46:2895-2907.
17. Ortiz AR, Gomez-Puertas P, Leo-Macias A, Lopez-Romero P, Lopez-Vinas E, Morreale A, Murcia M, Wang K. Computational approaches to model ligand selectivity in drug design. Curr Top Med Chem 2006;6:41-55.
18. Giorgetti A, Raimondo D, Miele AE, Tramontano A. Evaluating the usefulness of protein structure models for molecular replacement. Bioinformatics 2005;21 (Suppl_2):ii72-ii76.
19. Claude JB, Suhre K, Notredame C, Claverie JM, Abergel C. CaspR: a web server for automated molecular replacement using homology modeling. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32(Web Server issue):W606-W609.
20. Read RJ. Pushing the boundaries of molecular replacement with maximum likelihood. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 2001;57:1373-1382.
21. Chakravarty S, Sanchez R. Systematic analysis of added-value in simple comparative models of protein structure. Structure 2004;12:1461-1470.
22. Chakravarty S, Wang L, Sanchez R. Accuracy of structure-derived properties in simple comparative models of protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33:244-259.
23. Chen J, Brooks CL, IIIrd. Can molecular dynamics simulations provide high-resolution refinement of protein structure? Proteins 2007;67:922-930.
24. Lu H, Skolnick J. Application of statistical potentials to protein structure refinement from low resolution ab initio models. Biopolymers 2003;70:575-584.
25. Misura KM, Baker D. Progress and challenges in high-resolution refinement of protein structure models. Proteins 2005;59:15-29.
26. Leo-Macias A, Lopez-Romero P, Lupyan D, Zerbino D, Ortiz AR. An analysis of core deformations in protein superfamilies. Biophys J 2005;88:1291-1299.
27. Qian B, Ortiz AR, Baker D. Improvement of comparative model accuracy by free-energy optimization along principal components of natural structural variation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004;101:15346-15351.
28. Lupyan D, Leo-Macias A, Ortiz AR. A new progressive-iterative algorithm for multiple structure alignment. Bioinformatics 2005;21:3255-3263.
29. Mitsutake A, Sugita Y, Okamoto Y. Generalized-ensemble algorithms for molecular simulations of biopolymers. Biopolymers 2001;60:96-123.
30. Chandonia JM, Hon G, Walker NS, Lo Conte L, Koehl P, Levitt M, Brenner SE. The ASTRAL Compendium in 2004. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32(Databaseissue): D189-192.
31. Lo Conte L, Brenner SE, Hubbard TJ, Chothia C, Murzin AG. SCOP database in 2002: refinements accommodate structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res 2002;30:264-267.
32. Hobohm U, Scharf M, Schneider R, Sander C. Selection of representative protein data sets. Protein Sci 1992;1:409-417.
33. Ortiz AR, Strauss CE, Olmea O. MAMMOTH (matching molecular models obtained from theory): an automated method for model comparison. Protein Sci 2002;11:2606-2621.
34. Skocaj D, Bischof H, Leonardis A, A Robust. PCA algorithm for building representations for panoramic images. Computer Vision - ECCV 2002: 7th European Conference on Computer Vision Proceedings, Part IV. Vol 2353, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2002. pp 761-775.
35. Atilgan AR, Durell SR, Jernigan RL, Demirel MC, Keskin O, Bahar I. Anisotropy of fluctuation dynamics of proteins with an elastic network model. Biophys J 2001;80:505-515.
36. Arfken G, Weber HS. Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization. In: Press A, editor. Mathematical methods for physicists. Orlando; 1985. Academic Press, pp 516-520.
37. Feig M, Karanicolas J, Brooks CL, IIIrd.MMTSB Tool Set. MMTSB NIH Research Resource, The Scripps Research Institute; 2001.
38. Canutescu AA, Shelenkov AA, Dunbrack RL, Jr. A graph-theory algorithm for rapid protein side-chain prediction. Protein Sci 2003;12:2001-2014.
39. Fiser A, Sali A. ModLoop: automated modeling of loops in protein structures. Bioinformatics 2003;19:2500-2501.
40. Case DA, Cheathan TE, IIIrd, Darden T, Gohlke H, Luo R, Merz KM, Jr, Onufriev A, Simmerling C, Wang B, Woods R. The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. Comput Chem 2005;26:1668-1688.
41. Laskowski RA, Macarthur MW, Moss DS, Thornton JM. Procheck - a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures. J Appl Crystallogr 1993;26:283-291.
42. Contreras-Moreira B, Ezkurdia I, Tress ML, Valencia A. Empirical limits for template-based protein structure prediction: the CASP5 example. FEBS Lett 2005;579:1203-1207.
43. Zemla A. LGA: a method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31:3370-3374.
44. Canutescu AA, Dunbrack RL. Cyclic coordinate descent: a robotics algorithm for protein loop closure. Protein Sci 2003;12:963-972.
45. Mitsutake A, Sugita Y, Okamoto Y. Replica-exchange multicanonical and multicanonical replica-exchange Monte Carlo simulations of peptides. II. Application to a more complex system. J Chem Phys 2003;118:6676-6688.
46. Gonzalez RC, Woods RC. Digital image processing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1992.
47. Hukushima K, Nemoto K. Exchange Monte Carlo method and application to spin glass simulations. J Phys Soc Jpn 1996;65:1604-1608.
48. Hukushima K, Takayama H, Nemoto K. Application of an extended ensemble method to spin glasses. Int J Mod Phys C: Phys Comput 1996;7:337-344.
49. Mitsutake A, Sugita Y, Okamoto Y. Replica-exchange multicanonical and multicanonical replica-exchange Monte Carlo simulations of peptides. I. Formulation and benchmark test. J Chem Phys 2003;118:6664-6675.
50. Sharma G, Badescu M, Dubey A, Mavroidis C, Tomassone SM, Yarmush ML. Kinematics and workspace analysis of protein based nano-actuators. J Mech Design 2005;127:718-727.
51. Press WH, Press WH. Numerical recipes in FORTRAN: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992;xxvi,963 p.
52. Zhang L, Skolnick J. What should the Z-score of native protein structures be? Protein Sci 1998;7:1201-1207.
53. Zhang L, Skolnick J. How do potentials derived from structural databases relate to "true" potentials? Protein Sci 1998;7:112-122.