Erratum to Multibody coarse-grained potentials for native structure recognition and quality assessment of protein models. [Proteins 79, 6, (2011) 1923-1929] DOI: 10.1002/prot.23015;Multibody coarse-grained potentials for native structure recognition and quality assessment of protein models

Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics

Volumn 79, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1923-1929

  Gniewek, Pawel ^a,b   Leelananda, Sumudu P ^b   Kolinski, Andrzej ^a   Jernigan, Robert L ^b   Kloczkowski, Andrzej ^b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT NATIONWIDE CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Coarse grained models; Multibody potentials; Optimization; Protein modeling; Proteins; Statistical potentials; Threading

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID;

ARTICLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN QUALITY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS;

EID: 79955737158     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.24578     Document Type: Erratum

References (40)

1. Qu X, Swanson R, Day R, Tsai J. A Guide to Template Based Structure Prediction. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2009; 10: 270-285.
2. Kihara D, Chen, andYang YD. Quality Assessment of Protein Structure Models. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2009; 10: 216-228.
3. 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.
4. Skolnick J, Brylinski M. FINDSITE: a combined evolution/structure-based approach to protein function prediction. Brief Bioinform 2009; 10: 378-391.
5. Kryshtafovych A, Fidelis K. Protein structure prediction and model quality assessment. Drug Discov Today 2009; 14: 386-393.
6. Bellows ML, Floudas CA. Computational Methods for De novo Protein Design and its Applications to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1. Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase Ubiquitin Specific Protease 7, and Histone Demethylases. Curr Drug Targets 2010; 11: 264-278.
7. Mandell DJ, Kortemme T. Computer-aided design of functional protein interactions. Nat Chem Biol 2009; 5: 797-807.
8. Mandell DJ, Kortemme T. Backbone flexibility in computational protein design. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2009; 20: 420-428.
9. Gerlt JA, Babbitt PC. Enzyme (re)design: lessons from natural evolution and computation. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2009; 13: 10-18.
10. Vajda S, Kozakov D. Convergence and combination of methods in protein-protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2009; 19: 164-170.
11. de Azevedo WF, Dias R. Computational Methods for Calculation of Ligand-Binding Affinity. Curr Drug Targets 2008; 9: 1031-1039.
12. Vakser IA, Kundrotas P. Predicting 3D Structures of Protein-Protein Complexes. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2008; 9: 57-66.
13. Ritchie DW. Recent Progress and Future Directions in Protein-Protein Docking. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2008; 9: 1-15.
14. Klepeis JL, Lindorff-Larsen K, Dror RO, Shaw DE. Long-timescale molecular dynamics simulations of protein structure and function Curr Opin Struct Biol 2009; 19: 120-127.
15. Roccatano D. Computer Simulations Study of Biomolecules in Non-Aqueous or Cosolvent/Water Mixture Solutions. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2008; 9: 407-426.
16. Fawzi NL, Yap EH, Okabe Y, Kohlstedt KL, Brown SP, Head-Gordon T. Contrasting Disease and Nondisease Protein Aggregation by Molecular Simulation. Acc Chem Res 2008; 41: 1037-1047.
17. Rumfeldt JAO, Galvagnion C, Vassall KA, Meiering EM. Conformational stability and folding mechanisms of dimeric proteins. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2008; 98: 61-84.
18. Samudrala R, Moult J. An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction J Mol Biol 1998; 275: 895-916.
19. Lu H, Skolnick J. A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins 2001; 44: 223-232.
20. 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.
21. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation. Macromolecules 1986; 18: 534-552.
22. 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.
23. Sippl MJ. Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mena force: an approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1990; 213: 859-883.
24. Tanaka S, Scheraga HA. Medium- and Long-Range Interaction Parameters between Amino Acids for Predicting Three-Dimensional Structures of Proteins. Macromolecules 1976; 9: 945-950.
25. Betancourt M, 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.
26. Munson P, Singh RK. Statistical significance of hierarchical multi-body potentials based on Delaunay tessellation and their application in sequence-structure alignment. Protein Sci 1997; 6: 1467-1481.
27. Li X, Liang J. Geometric cooperativity and anticooperativity of three-body interactions in native proteins. Proteins 2005; 60: 46-65.
28. Krishnamoorthy B, Tropsha A. Development of a four-body statistical pseudo-potential to discriminate native from non-native protein conformations. Bioinformatics 2003; 19: 1540-1548.
29. Feng Y, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan RL. Four-body contact potentials derived from two protein datasets to discriminate native structures from decoys. Proteins 2007; 68: 57-66.
30. Feng Y, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan R. Potentials 'R'Us web-server for protein energy estimations with coarse-grained knowledge-based potentials. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11: 92-95.
31. Bahar I, Kaplan M, Jernigan RL. Short-range conformational energies, secondary structure propensities, and recognition of correct sequence-structure matches. Proteins 1997; 29: 292-308.
32. Samudrala R, Levitt M. Decoys "R". Us: a database of incorrect conformations to improve protein structure prediction. Protein Sci 2000; 9: 1399-1401.
33. Gilis D. Protein decoy sets for evaluating energy functions. J Biomol Struct Dyn 2004; 21: 725-736.
34. Pokarowski P, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan RL, Kothari NS, Pokarowska M, Kolinski A. Inferring ideal amino acid interaction forms from statistical protein contact potentials. Proteins 2005; 59: 49-57.
35. Kennedy J.Eberhart RC. Particle swarm optimization. Proc IEEE Int Conf Neural Networks, Vol. IV, 1995; 1942-1948.
36. Zhang Y, Skolnick J. Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins 2004; 57: 702-710.
37. McGuffin L. Benchmarking consensus model quality assessment for protein fold recognition. BMC Bioinformatics 2007; 8: 345.
38. Li H, Tang C, Wingreen NS. Nature of driving force for protein folding: a result from analyzing the statistical potential. Phys Rev Letts 1997; 4: 765-768.
39. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Self-consistent estimation of inter-residue protein contact energies based on an equilibrium mixture approximation of residues. Proteins 1999; 34: 49-68.
40. 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.