A pairwise residue contact area-based mean force potential for discrimination of native protein structure

BMC Bioinformatics

Volumn 11, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Arab, Shahriar ^a   Sadeghi, Mehdi ^b,c   Eslahchi, Changiz ^d   Pezeshk, Hamid ^a   Sheari, Armita ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN   (Iran)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENETIC ENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY   (Iran)

^c INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCES IPM   (Iran)

^d SHAHID BEHESHTI UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FOLD RECOGNITION; INTERACTION FUNCTIONS; NATIVE STRUCTURES; ORIENTATION DEPENDENT; POTENTIAL OF MEAN FORCE; PROTEIN STRUCTURE PREDICTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURES; PROTEIN THREADING;

AMINO ACIDS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; PROTEIN FOLDING;

PROTEINS;

PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; BINDING SITE; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; METHODOLOGY; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN DATABASE; PROTEIN FOLDING;

BINDING SITES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, PROTEIN; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEINS;

EID: 76749140453     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-16     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Moult J. Comparison of database potentials and molecular mechanics force fields. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997, 7:194-199. 10.1016/S0959-440X(97)80025-5, 9094335.
2. Vajda S, Sippl M, Novotny J. Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997, 7:222-228. 10.1016/S0959-440X(97)80029-2, 9094333.
3. 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. 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0704, 9000638.
4. Hao MH, Scheraga HA. Designing potential energy functions for protein folding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1999, 9:184-188. 10.1016/S0959-440X(99)80026-8, 10322206.
5. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. An empirical energy potential with a reference state for protein fold and sequence recognition. Proteins 1999, 36:357-369. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990815)36:3<357::AID-PROT10>3.0.CO;2-U, 10409829.
6. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Effective energy functions for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2000, 10:145.
7. Felts AK, Gallicchio E, Wallqvist A, Levy RM. 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 2002, 48:404-422. 10.1002/prot.10171, 12112706.
8. Dominy BN, Brooks CL. Identifying native-like protein structures using physics-based potentials. J Comput Chem 2002, 23:147-160. 10.1002/jcc.10018, 11913380.
9. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Discrimination of the native from misfolded protein models with an energy function including implicit solvation. J Mol Biol 1999, 288:477-487. 10.1006/jmbi.1999.2685, 10329155.
10. Jones DT. GenTHREADER: an efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. J Mol Biol 1999, 287:797-815. 10.1006/jmbi.1999.2583, 10191147.
11. Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M. CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 1983, 4:187-217.
12. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Effective energy function for proteins in solution. Proteins. Proteins 1999, 35:133-152. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990501)35:2<133::AID-PROT1>3.0.CO;2-N, 10223287.
13. Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Case DA, Singh UC, Ghio C, Alagona G. A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins. J Am Chem Soc 1984, 106:765-787.
14. Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, 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 1996, 118:11225-111236.
15. Sippl MJ. Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1990, 213:859-883. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80269-4, 2359125.
16. Sippl MJ. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1995, 5:229-235. 10.1016/0959-440X(95)80081-6, 7648326.
17. Covell DG. Folding protein alpha-carbon chains into compact forms by Monte Carlo methods. Proteins 1992, 14:409-420. 10.1002/prot.340140310, 1438179.
18. Sun S. Reduced representation model of protein structure prediction: statistical potential and genetic algorithms. Protein Sci 1993, 2:762-785. 10.1002/pro.5560020508, 2142494, 8495198.
19. Bauer A, Beyer A. An improved pair potential to recognize native protein folds. Proteins 1994, 18:254-261. 10.1002/prot.340180306, 8202466.
20. Jernigan RL, Bahar I. Structure-derived potentials and protein simulations. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1996, 6:195-209. 10.1016/S0959-440X(96)80075-3, 8728652.
21. Melo F, Feytmans E. Assessing protein structures with a non-local atomic interaction energy. J Mol Biol 1998, 277:1141-1152. 10.1006/jmbi.1998.1665, 9571028.
22. Tobi D, Elber R. Distance-dependent, pair potential for protein folding: Results from linear optimization. Proteins 2000, 41:40-46. 10.1002/1097-0134(20001001)41:1<40::AID-PROT70>3.0.CO;2-U, 10944392.
23. Melo F, Sanchez R, Sali A. Statistical potentials for fold assessment. Protein Sci 2002, 11:430-448. 10.1110/ps.25502, 2373452, 11790853.
24. Dong Q, Wang X, Lin L. Novel knowledge-based mean force potential at the profile level. BMC Bioinformatics 2006, 7:324. 10.1186/1471-2105-7-324, 1534065, 16803615.
25. Zhu J, Zhu Q, Shi Y, Liu H. How well can we predict native contacts in proteins based on decoy structures and their energies?. Proteins 2003, 52:598-608. 10.1002/prot.10444, 12910459.
26. McConkey BJ, Sobolev V, Edelman M. Discrimination of native protein structures using atom-atom contact scoring. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003, 100:3215-3220.
27. Zhang C, Liu S, Zhou H, Zhou Y. An accurate, residue-level, pair potential of mean force for folding and binding based on the distance-scaled, ideal-gas reference state. Protein Sci 2004, 13:400-411. 10.1110/ps.03348304, 2286718, 14739325.
28. Misura KM, Chivian D, Rohl CA, Kim DE, Baker D. Physically realistic homology models built with ROSETTA can be more accurate than their templates. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2006, 103:5361-5366. 10.1073/pnas.0509355103, 1459360, 16567638.
29. Simons KT, 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 1997, 268:209-225. 10.1006/jmbi.1997.0959, 9149153.
30. Shen MY, Sali A. Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci 2006, 15:2507-2524. 10.1110/ps.062416606, 2242414, 17075131.
31. Fogolari F, Pieri L, Dovier A, Bortolussi L, Giugliarelli G, Corazza A, Esposito G, Viglino P. Scoring predictive models using a reduced representation of proteins: model and energy definition. BMC Struct Biol 2007, 7:15. 10.1186/1472-6807-7-15, 1854906, 17378941.
32. Mirzaie M, Eslahchi C, Pezeshk H, Sadeghi M. A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential and force for discrimination of native structures from decoys. Proteins 2009, 77:454-463. 10.1002/prot.22457, 19452553.
33. Li X, Hu C, Liang J. Simplicial edge representation of protein structures and alpha contact potential with confidence measure. Proteins 2003, 53:792-805. 10.1002/prot.10442, 14635122.
34. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Biol 1996, 256:623-644. 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0114, 8604144.
35. Pauling L. The Nature of the Chemical Bond 1960, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 3.
36. Hobohm U, Sander C. Enlarged representative set of protein structures. Protein Sci 1994, 3:522-524. 2142698, 8019422.
37. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000, 28:235-242. 10.1093/nar/28.1.235, 102472, 10592235.
38. Fogolari F, Tosatto SC, Colombo G. A decoy set for the thermostable subdomain from chicken villin headpiece, comparison of different free energy estimators. BMC Bioinformatics 2005, 6:301. 10.1186/1471-2105-6-301, 1351271, 16354298.
39. Holm L, Sander C. Evaluation of protein models by atomic solvation preference. J Mol Biol 1992, 225:93-105. 10.1016/0022-2836(92)91028-N, 1583696.
40. Samudrala R, Levitt M. A comprehensive analysis of 40 blind protein structure predictions. BMC Struct Biol 2002, 2:3-18. 10.1186/1472-6807-2-3, 122083, 12150712.
41. Samudrala R, Levitt M. Decoys'R' Us:a database of incorrect conformation to improve protein structure prediction. Protein Sci 2000, 9:1399-1401. 10.1110/ps.9.7.1399, 2144680, 10933507.
42. Park B, Levitt M. Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. J Mol Biol 1996, 285:367-392.
43. Rajgaria R, McAllister SR, Floudas CA. A novel high resolution Calpha--Calpha distance dependent force field based on a high quality decoy set. Proteins 2006, 65:726-741. 10.1002/prot.21149, 16981202.
44. Tsai J, Bonneau R, Morozov AV, Kuhlman B, Rohl CA, Baker D. An improved protein decoy set for testing energy functions for protein structure prediction. Proteins 2003, 53:76-87. 10.1002/prot.10454, 12945051.
45. Kabsch W. A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Acta Crystallographica Section D-Biological Crystallography 1976, A32:922-923.
46. Reck GM, Vaisman II. Decoy Discrimination Using Contact Potentials Based on Delaunay Tessellation of Hydrated Proteins. IEEE Computer Society 2007, 159-167.