Threading without optimizing weighting factors for scoring function

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 73, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 581-596

  Yang, Yifeng David ^a   Park, Changsoon ^b   Kihara, Daisuke ^a,c  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Chung Ang University   (South Korea)

^c Purdue University   (United States)

Author keywords

Protein folding; Protein structrure prediction; Scoring function; Threading; Weight optimization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SCORING SYSTEM;

ALGORITHMS; DATABASES, PROTEIN; PROTEINS;

EID: 57349109890     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.22082     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Skolnick J, Kihara D. Defrosting the frozen approximation: PROSPECTOR - a new approach to threading. Proteins 2001;42:319-331.
2. Skolnick J, Kihara D, Zhang Y. Development and large scale benchmark testing of the PROSPECTOR 3.0 threading algorithm. Proteins 2004;56:502-518.
3. Bowie JU, Luthy R, Eisenberg D. A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science 1991;253:164-170.
4. Kihara D, Skolnick J. The PDB is a covering set of small protein structures. J Mol Biol 2003;334:793-802.
5. Orengo CA, Jones DT, Thornton JM. Protein superfamilies and domain superfolds. Nature 1994;372:631-634.
6. Kryshtafovych A, Venclovas C, Fidelis K, Moult J. Progress over the first decade of CASP experiments. Proteins 2005;61 (Suppl):7225-7236.
7. Wang G, Jin Y, Dunbrack RL, Jr. Assessment of fold recognition predictions in CASP6. Proteins 2005;61 (Suppl):746-766.
8. Rychlewski L, Jaroszewski L, Li W, Godzik A. Comparison of sequence profiles. Strategies for structural predictions using sequence information. Protein Sci 2000;9:232-241.
9. Wang G, Dunbrack RL, Jr. Scoring profile-to-profile sequence alignments. Protein Sci 2004;13:1612-1626.
10. Karchin R, Cline M, Mandel-Gutfreund Y, Karplus K. Hidden Markov models that use predicted local structure for fold recognition: alphabets of backbone geometry. Proteins 2003;51:504-514.
11. Karplus K, Barrett C, Hughey R. Hidden Markov models for detecting remote protein homologies. Bioinformatics 1998;14:846-856.
12. Dunbrack RL, Jr. Sequence comparison and protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006;16:374-384.
13. Zhou H, Zhou Y. Single-body residue-level knowledge-based energy score combined with sequence-profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition. Proteins 2004;55:1005-1013.
14. Matsuo Y, Nishikawa K. Protein structural similarities predicted by a sequence-structure compatibility method. Protein Sci 1994;3:2055-2063.
15. Jones DT. Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. J Mol Biol 1999;292:195-202.
16. Rost B, Schneider R, Sander C. Protein fold recognition by prediction-based threading. J Mol Biol 1997;270:471-480.
17. Skolnick J, Jaroszewski L, Kolinski A, Godzik A. Derivation and testing of pair potentials for protein folding. When is the quasichemical approximation correct? Protein Sci 1997;6:676-688.
18. Sippl MJ. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1995;5:229-235.
19. Kihara D, Lu H, Kolinski A, Skolnick J. TOUCHSTONE: an ab initio protein structure prediction method that uses threading-based tertiary restraints. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:10125-10130.
20. Kmiecik S, Gront D, Kolinski A. Towards the high-resolution protein structure prediction. Fast refinement of reduced models with all-atom force field. BMC Struct Biol 2007;7:43.
21. Zhou H, Skolnick J. Ab initio protein structure prediction using chunk-TASSER. Biophys J 2007;93:1510-1518.
22. Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 2002;47:409-443.
23. Pierce B, Weng Z. ZRANK: reranking protein docking predictions with an optimized energy function. Proteins 2007;67:1078-1086.
24. Meiler J, Baker D. ROSETTALIGAND: protein-small molecule docking with full side-chain flexibility. Proteins 2006;65:538-548.
25. Sousa SF, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ. Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges. Proteins 2006;65:15-26.
26. Wu Y, Lu M, Chen M, Li J, Ma J. OPUS-Ca: a knowledge-based potential function requiring only Calpha positions. Protein Sci 2007;16:1449-1463.
27. Tan YH, Huang H, Kihara D. Statistical potential-based amino acid similarity matrices for aligning distantly related protein sequences. Proteins 2006;64:587-600.
28. Akutsu T, Tashimo H. Linear programming based approach to the derivation of a contact potential for protein threading. Pac Symp Biocomput 1998;413-424.
29. Zien A, Zimmer R, Lengauer T. A simple iterative approach to parameter optimization. J Comput Biol 2000;7:483-501.
30. Antes I, Merkwirth C, Lengauer T. POEM: parameter optimization using ensemble methods: application to target specific scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model 2005;45:1291-1302.
31. Rosen JB, Phillips AT, Oh SY, Dill KA. A method for parameter optimization in computational biology. Biophys J 2000;79:2818-2824.
32. Chiu TL, Goldstein RA. Optimizing energy potentials for success in protein tertiary structure prediction. Fold Des 1998;3:223-228.
33. Mirny LA, Shakhnovich EI. How to derive a protein folding potential? A new approach to an old problem. J Mol Biol 1996;264:1164-1179.
34. Maiorov VN, Crippen GM. Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1992;227:876-888.
35. Hao MH, Scheraga HA. How optimization of potential functions affects protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996;93:4984-4989.
36. Noguchi T, Akiyama Y. PDB-REPRDB: a database of representative protein chains from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) in 2003. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31:492-493.
37. Silverman BW. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis, 1st ed. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1986.
38. Betancourt MR, Thirumalai D. Pair potentials for protein folding: choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes. Protein Sci 1999;8:361-369.
39. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. An empirical energy potential with a reference state for protein fold and sequence recognition. Proteins 1999;36:357-369.
40. Zhou H, Zhou Y. Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction. Protein Sci 2002;11:2714-2726.
41. Skolnick J. In quest of an empirical potential for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006;16:166-171.
42. Huang ES, Samudrala R, Ponder JW. Ab initio fold prediction of small helical proteins using distance geometry and knowledge-based scoring functions. J Mol Biol 1999;290:267-281.
43. Shen MY, Sali A. Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci 2006;15:2507-2524.
44. Benkert P, Tosatto SC, Schomburg D. QMEAN: a comprehensive scoring function for model quality assessment. Proteins 2008;71:261-277.
45. Colovos C, Yeates TO. Verification of protein structures: patterns of nonbonded atomic interactions. Protein Sci 1993;2:1511-1519.
46. Melo F, Feytmans E. Novel knowledge-based mean force potential at atomic level. J Mol Biol 1997;267:207-222.
47. Zhang J, Chen R, Liang J. Empirical potential function for simplified protein models: combining contact and local sequence-structure descriptors. Proteins 2006;63:949-960.
48. Gront D, Kolinski A. A new approach to prediction of short-range conformational propensities in proteins. Bioinformatics 2005;21:981-987.
49. Lu H, Skolnick J. A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins 2001;44:223-232.
50. Betancourt MR. A reduced protein model with accurate native-structure identification ability. Proteins 2003;53:889-907.
51. Tobi D, Elber R. Distance-dependent, pair potential for protein folding: results from linear optimization. Proteins 2000;41:40-46.
52. Reva BA, Finkelstein AV, Skolnick J. What is the probability of a chance prediction of a protein structure with an rmsd of 6 A? Fold Des 1998;3:141-147.
53. Sali A, Shakhnovich E, Karplus M. How does a protein fold? Nature 1994;369:248-251.
54. Ivankov DN, Finkelstein AV. Prediction of protein folding rates from the amino acid sequence-predicted secondary structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004;101:8942-8944.
55. Nakashima H, Nishikawa K, Ooi T. The folding type of a protein is relevant to the amino acid composition. J Biochem (Tokyo) 1986;99:153-162.
56. Klein P, DeLisi C. Prediction of protein structural class from the amino acid sequence. Biopolymers 1986;25:1659-1672.
57. Chou KC. Progress in protein structural class prediction and its impact to bioinformatics and proteomics. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2005;6:423-436.
58. Adamczak R, Porollo A, Meller J. Combining prediction of secondary structure and solvent accessibility in proteins. Proteins 2005;59:467-475.
59. Bharath R, Bharath R, Drosen J. Neural network computing. New York: Windcrest/McGraw-Hill; 1994.
60. Betancourt MR, Skolnick J. Local propensities and statistical potentials of backbone dihedral angles in proteins. J Mol Biol 2004;342:635-649.
61. Fleming PJ, Gong H, Rose GD. Secondary structure determines protein topology. Protein Sci 2006;15:1829-1834.
62. Kihara D. The effect of long-range interactions on the secondary structure formation of proteins. Protein Sci 2005;14:1955-1963.
63. Devore JL. Inferences based on two samples; probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences, 6th ed., Chapter 9. Minnesota: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company; 2004. pp 354-401.
64. 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.
65. Chivian D, Baker D. Homology modeling using parametric alignment ensemble generation with consensus and energy-based model selection. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:e112.
66. Fischer D. 3D-SHOTGUN: a novel, cooperative, fold-recognition meta-predictor. Proteins 2003;51:434-441.
67. Ginalski K, Elofsson A, Fischer D, Rychlewski L. 3D-Jury: a simple approach to improve protein structure predictions. Bioinformatics 2003;19:1015-1018.
68. Hu J, Yang YD, Kihara D. EMD: an ensemble algorithm for discovering regulatory motifs in DNA sequences. BMC Bioinformatics 2006;7:342.
69. Contreras-Moreira B, Fitzjohn PW, Bates PA. In silico protein recombination: enhancing template and sequence alignment selection for comparative protein modelling. J Mol Biol 2003;328:593-608.
70. Wallner B, Elofsson A. Pcons5: combining consensus, structural evaluation and fold recognition scores. Bioinformatics 2005;21:4248-4254.
71. Notredame C, Higgins DG, Heringa J. T-Coffee: a novel method for fast and accurate multiple sequence alignment. J Mol Biol 2000;302:205-217.
72. Dill KA, Chan HS. From Levinthal to pathways to funnels. Nat Struct Biol 1997;4:10-19.
73. Nakamura HK, Sasai M. Population analyses of kinetic partitioning in protein folding. Proteins 2001;43:280-291.