Statistical mechanics-based method to extract atomic distance-dependent potentials from protein structures

Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics

Volumn 79, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 2648-2661

  Huang, Sheng You ^a,b,c   Zou, Xiaoqin ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b University of Missouri   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Distance dependent all atom potentials; Knowledge based; Protein structure prediction; Scoring function

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; HYDROGEN BOND; MODEL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, PROTEIN; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEINS; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 80051564821     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.23086     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. 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.
2. Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Wheeler DL. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36: D25-D30.
3. Skolnick J, Fetrow JS, Kolinski A. Structural genomics and its importance for gene function analysis. Nat Biotechnol 2000; 18: 283-287.
4. Baker D. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science 2001; 294: 93-96.
5. Jacobson M, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling and its applications to drug discovery. In: Overington J, editor. Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry, Vol. 39. London: Inpharmatica; 2004. pp 259-276.
6. Ginalski K, Grishin NV, Godzik A, Rychlewski L. Practical lessons from protein structure prediction. Nucleic Acids Res 2005; 33: 1874-1891.
7. Zhou H, Skolnick J. Protein structure prediction by pro-Sp3-TASSER. Biophys J 2009; 96: 2119-2127.
8. Roy A, Kucukural A, Zhang Y. I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nat Protoc 2010; 5: 725-738.
9. Petrey, D. andHonig, B. Protein structure prediction: inroads to biology. Mol Cell 2005; 20: 811-819.
10. Zhang Y. Progress and challenges in protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2008; 18: 342-348.
11. Martí-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sánchez R, Melo F, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2000; 29: 291-325.
12. 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.
13. Zhang Y, Arakaki AK, Skolnick J. TASSER: An automated method for the prediction of protein tertiary structures in CASP6. Proteins 2005; 61(S7): 91-98.
14. Xia Y, Huang ES, Levitt M, Samudrala R. Ab initio construction of protein tertiary structures using a hierarchical approach. J Mol Biol 2000; 300: 171-185.
15. Shmygelska A, Levitt M. Generalized ensemble methods for de novo structure prediction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106: 1415-1420.
16. Qiu J, Sheffler W, Baker D, Noble WS. Ranking predicted protein structures with support vector regression. Proteins 2008; 71: 1175-1182.
17. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Effective energy functions for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2000; 10: 139-145.
18. Buchete NV, Straub JE, Thirumalai D. Development of novel statistical potentials for protein fold recognition. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2004; 14: 225-232.
19. Skolnick J. In quest of an empirical potential for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006; 16: 166-171.
20. Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M. CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy minimization and dynamic calculations. J Comput Chem 1983; 4: 187-217.
21. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Discrimination of the native from misfolded protein models with an energy function including implicit solvation. J Mol Biol 1998; 288: 477-487.
22. Still WC, Tempczyk A, Hawley RC, Hendrickson T. Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. J Am Chem Soc 1990; 112: 6127-6129.
23. Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA. Development and testing of a general Amber force field. J Comput Chem 2004; 25: 1157-1174.
24. Case DA, Cheatham TE, 3rd, Darden T, Gohlke H, Luo R, Merz KMJr, Onufriev A, Simmerling C, Wang B, Woods RJ. The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. J Comput Chem 2005; 26: 1668-1688.
25. Liwo A, ArlDukowicz P, Czaplewski C, OlDdziej S, Pillardy J, Scheraga HA. A method for optimizing potential-energy functions by a hierarchical design of the potential-energy landscape: application to the UNRES force field. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99: 1937-1942.
26. Wroblewska L, Skolnick J. Can a physics-based, all-atom potential find a protein's native structure among misfolded structures? I. Large scale AMBER benchmarking. J Comput Chem 2007; 28: 2059-2066.
27. Jagielska A, Wroblewska L, Skolnick J. Protein model refinement using an optimized physics-based all-atom force field. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 8268-8273.
28. 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.
29. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation. Macromolecules 1985; 18: 534-552.
30. 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.
31. Li X, Liang J. Knowledge-based energy functions for computational studies of proteins. In: Xu Y, Xu D, Liang J, editors. Computational methods for protein structure prediction and modeling, Vol. 1. New York: Springer; 2006. pp 71-124.
32. Zhu J, Fan H, Periole X, Honig B, Mark AE. Refining homology models by combining replica-exchange molecular dynamics and statistical potentials. Proteins 2008; 72: 1171-1188.
33. Maiorov VN, Crippen GM. Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1992; 227: 876-888.
34. Tobi D, Elber R. Distance-dependent, pair potential for protein folding: results from linear optimization. Proteins 2000; 41: 40-46.
35. Qiu J, Elber R. Atomically detailed potentials to recognize native and approximate protein structures. Proteins 2005; 61: 44-55.
36. Rajgaria R, McAllister SR, Floudas CA. Distance dependent centroid to centroid force fields using high resolution decoys. Proteins 2008; 70: 950-970.
37. Hao MH, Scheraga HA. How optimization of potential function affects protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93: 4984-4989
38. Bastolla U, Vendruscolo M, Knapp EW. A statistical mechanical method to optimize energy functions for protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000; 97: 3977-3981.
39. Mimy LA, Shakhnovich EI. How to derive a protein folding potential? A new approach to an old problem. J Mol Biol 1996; 264: 1164-1179.
40. Huber T, Torda AE. Protein fold recognition without Boltzmann statistics or explicit physical basis. Protein Sci 1998; 7: 142-149.
41. Koretke KK, Luthey-Schulten Z, Wolynes PG. Self-consistently optimized energy functions for protein structure prediction by molecular dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998; 95: 2932-2937.
42. Thomas PD, Dill KA. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: How accurate are they? J Mol Biol 1996; 257: 457-469.
43. Koppensteiner WA, Sippl MJ. Knowledge-based potentials-back to the roots. Biochemistry (Moscow) 1998; 63: 247-252.
44. Thomas PD, Dill KA. An iterative method for extracting energy-like quantities from protein structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93: 11628-11633.
45. McQuarrie, DA. Statistical mechanics. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books; 2000.
46. Poole AM, Ranganathan R. Knowledgebased potentials in protein design. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006; 16: 508-513.
47. Zhou Y, Zhou H, Zhang C, Liu S. What is a desirable statistical energy function for proteins and how can it be obtained? Cell Biochem Biophys 2006; 46: 165-174.
48. Shen M-Y, Sali A. Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci 2006; 15: 2507-2524
49. Lu M, Dousis AD, Ma J. OPUS-PSP: an orientation-dependent statistical all-atom potential derived from side-chain packing. J Mol Biol 2008; 376: 288-301.
50. Benkert P, Tosatto SCE, Schomburg D. QMEAN: a comprehensive scoring function for model quality assessment. Proteins 2008; 71: 261-277.
51. Huang S-Y, Zou X. Mean-force scoring functions for protein-ligand binding. Annu Rep Comput Chem 2010; 6: 281-296.
52. 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.
53. Perez C, Ortiz AR. Evaluation of docking functions for protein-ligand interactions. J Med Chem 2001; 44: 3768-3785.
54. Huang S-Y, Zou X. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions: I. Derivation of interaction potentials. J Comput Chem 2006; 27: 1865-1875.
55. Huang S-Y, Zou X. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function. J Comput Chem 2006; 27: 1876-1882.
56. Almarza NG, Lomba E. Determination of the interaction potential from the pair distribution function: an inverse Monte Carlo technique. Phys Rev E 2003; 680: 11202(1-6).
57. Henderson RL. A uniqueness theorem for fluid pair correlation functions. Phys Lett A 1974; 49: 197-198.
58. Chan HS, Dill KA. Transition states and folding dynamics of proteins and heteropolymers. J Chem Phys 1994; 100: 9238-9257.
59. Onuchic JN, Wolynes PG, Luthey-Schulten Z, Socci ND. Towards an outline of the topography of a realistic folding funnels. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92: 3626-3630.
60. Bryngelson JD, Onuchic JN, Socci ND, Wolynes PG. Funnels, pathways, and the energy landscape of protein folding: a synthesis. Proteins 1995; 21: 167-195.
61. Zhang Y, Skolnick J. Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on a genomic scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004; 101: 7594-7599.
62. Güntert P, Mumenthaler C, Wüthrich K. Torsion angle dynamics for NMR structure calculation with the new program DYANA. JMol Biol 1997; 273: 283-298.
63. Rajgaria R, McAllister SR, Floudas CA. Development of a novel high resolution Ca-Ca distance dependent force field using a high quality decoy set. Proteins 2006; 65: 726-741.
64. Huang S-Y, Zou X. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function for protein-protein recognition. Proteins 2008; 72: 557-579.
65. Tsai J, Bonneau R, Rohl C, Baker D. An improved protein decoy set for testing energy functions for protein structure prediction. Proteins 2003; 53: 76-87.
66. Samudrala R, Levitt M. Decoys 'R' Us: a database of incorrect protein conformations to improve protein structure prediction. Protein Sci 2000; 9: 1399-1401.
67. Park B, Levitt M. Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. J Mol Biol 1996; 258: 367-392.
68. Keasar C, Levitt M. A novel approach to decoy set generation: designing a physical energy function having local minima with native structure characteristics. J Mol Biol 2003; 329: 159-174.
69. Fogolari F, Tosatto SCE, Colombo G. A decoy set for the thermostable subdomain from chicken villin headpiece, comparison of different free energy estimators. BMC Bioinf 2005; 6: 301.
70. Handl J, Knowles J, Lovell SC. Artefacts and biases affecting the evaluation of scoring functions on decoy sets for protein structure prediction. Bioinformatics 2009; 25: 1271-1279.
71. Loose C, Klepeis JL, Floudas CA. A new pairwise folding potential based on improved decoy generation and side-chain packing. Proteins 2004; 54: 303-314.
72. Hinds DA, Levitt M. Exploring conformational space with a simple lattice model for protein structure. J Mol Biol 1994; 243: 668-682.
73. Yang Y, Zhou Y. Ab initio folding of terminal segments with secondary structures reveals the fine difference between two closely related all-atom statistical energy functions. Protein Sci 2008; 17: 1212-1219.
74. Yang Y, Zhou Y. Specific interactions for ab initio folding of protein terminal regions with secondary structures. Proteins 2008; 72: 793-803.
75. Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI, Gould IR, Merz KM, Jr, Ferguson DM, Spellmeyer DC, Fox T, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA. A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules. J Am Chem Soc 1995; 117: 5179-5197.
76. Tsui V, Case DA. Theory and applications of the generalized Born solvation model in macromolecular simulations. Biopolymers 2001; 56: 275-291.
77. Sitkoff D, Sharp KA, Honig B. Accurate calculation of hydration free energies using macroscopic solvent models. J Phys Chem 1994; 98: 1978-1988.
78. Zhang Y, Skolnick J. Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins 2004; 57: 702-710.
79. Tropsha A, Singh RK, Vaisman II. Delaunay tessellation of proteins: four body nearest neighbor propensities of amino acid residues. J Comput Biol 1996; 3: 213-222.
80. Krishnamoorthy B, Tropsha A. Development of a four-body statistical pseudo-potential to discriminate native from nonnative protein conformations. Bioinformatics 2003; 19: 1540-1548.
81. Li X, Liang J. Geometric cooperativity and anticooperativity of three-body interactions in native proteins. Proteins 2005; 60: 46-65.
82. Feng YP, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan RL. Four-body contact potentials derived from two protein datasets to discriminate native structures from decoys. Proteins 2007; 68: 57-66.
83. Brady PG, Sharp KA. Entropy in protein folding and in protein-protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997; 7: 215-221.
84. Huang S-Y, Zou X. Inclusion of solvation and entropy in the knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J Chem Inf Model 2010; 50: 262-273.