A simple and efficient statistical potential for scoring ensembles of protein structures

Scientific Reports

Volumn 2, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Cossio, Pilar ^a   Granata, Daniele ^a   Laio, Alessandro ^a   Seno, Flavio ^b   Trovato, Antonio ^b  

^a SISSA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859738455     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep00351     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Tanaka, S. & Scheraga, H. A. Mediumand long range interaction parameters between amino acids for predicting three dimensional structures of proteins. Macromolecules 9, 945-950 (1976).
2. Miyazawa, S., Miyazawa, S. & Jernigan, R. L. Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures. Macromolecules 18, 534-552 (1985).
3. Sippl, M. J. Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular protiens. J. Mol. Biol. 213, 859-883 (1990). (Pubitemid 20213222)
4. Lazaridis, T. & Karplus, M. Effective energy functions for protein structure predictions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol 10, 139-145 (1996).
5. Simons, K. T., 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. 268, 209-225 (1997). (Pubitemid 27192690)
6. Samudrala, R. & Moult, J. An all atom distance dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 275, 895-916 (1998). (Pubitemid 28077703)
7. Rajgaria, R., McAllister, S. R. & Floudas, C. A. Distance dependent centroid to centroid force fields using high resolution decoys. Proteins 70, 950-970 (2008). (Pubitemid 351161953)
8. Solis, A. D. & Rackovsky, S. Information and discrimination in pairwise contact potentials. Proteins 71, 1071-1087 (2008). (Pubitemid 351564035)
9. Jones, D. T., Taylor, W. R. & Thornton, J. M. A new approach to protein fold recognition. Nature 358, 86-89 (1992).
10. Simons, K. T. et al. Improved Recognition of Native like Protein structures using a combination of sequence dependent and sequence independent features of proteins. Proteins 34, 82-95 (1999). (Pubitemid 29019533)
11. Tobi, D. & Elber, R. Distance dependent, pair potential for protein folding: results from linear optimization. Protein 41, 40-56 (2000).
12. Lu, H. & Skolnick, J. A distance dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins 44, 223-232 (2001). (Pubitemid 32702231)
13. Zhou, H. & Zhou, Y. Single body knowledge based potentials based energy score combined with sequence profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition, Protein 55, 1005-1013 (2004). (Pubitemid 38702957)
14. Betancourt, M. R. & Skolnick, J. Local propensities and statistical potentials of backbone and dhiedral angles in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 235, 1598-1613 (2004).
15. Fang, Q. & Shortle, D. Protein refolding in silico with atom based statistical potentials and conformational search using a simple genetic algorithm. J Mol. Biol. 395, 1456 (2006).
16. Skolnick, J., Jaroszewski, L., Kolinski, A. & Godzik, A. Derivation and testing of pair potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability. Protein Science 6, 676 (1997).
17. Shen, M. Y. & Sali, A. Statistical potentials for assessment and prediction of protein models and a survey of energy functions. Protein Science 15, 2507-2524 (2006). (Pubitemid 44771688)
18. Rykunov, D. & Fiser, A. New statistical potential for quality assessment of protein models and a survey of energy functions. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 128 (2010).
19. Boas, F. E. & Harbury, P. B. Potential energy functions for protein design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 17, 199-204 (2007). (Pubitemid 46575252)
20. Lee, J., Liwo, A. & Scheraga, H. A. Energy based de novo protein folding by conformational space annealing and off-lattice united-residue force field: Application to the 10-55 fragment of staphylococcal proteinAand to apo calbidin D9k. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 2025-2030 (1999). (Pubitemid 29117861)
21. Turjanski, A. G., Gutkind, J. S., Best, R. B. & Hummer, G. Binding-induced folding of a natively unstructured transcriptor factor. Plos. Computational Biology 4, e1000060 (2008).
22. Bereau, T. & Deserno, M. Generic coarse-grained model for protein folding and aggregation. J. Chem. Phys. 130, 235106 (2009).
23. Skolnick, J. In quest of an empirical potential for protein structure prediction. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol 16, 166-171 (2006).
24. Buchete, N. V., Straub, Thirumalai, D. Development of novel statistical potentials for protein folding recognition. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol 14, 225-232 (2006).
25. Park, B. & Levitt, M. Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well constructed decoys. J. Mol. Biol 258, 367-392 (1996). (Pubitemid 26131738)
26. Samudrala, R. & Levitt, M. Decoy 'R' Us: a database of incorrect protein conformations to improve protein structure prediction. Protein Sci. 9, 1399-1401 (1998). (Pubitemid 30602295)
27. Tsai, J., Bonneau, R., Morozov, A. V., Kuhlman, R., Rohl, C. A. & Baker, D. An Improved protein decoy set for testing energy functions for protein structure prediction. Proteins 52, 76-87 (2003). (Pubitemid 37059546)
28. Cozzetto, D., Kryshtafovych, A. & Tramontano, A. Evaluation of CASP8 model quality predictions. Proteins 77, 157-166 (2009).
29. Handl, J., Knowles, J. & Lovell, S. C. Artefacts and biases affecting the evaluation of scoring functions on decoy sets for protein structure prediction. Bioinformatics 25, 1271-1279 (2009).
30. 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 Science 11, 2714 (2002).
31. McConkey, B. J., Sobolev, Edelman, M. Discrimination of native protein structures using atomatom contact scoring. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3215 (2003).
32. Dong, Q., Wang, X. & Lin, L. Novel knowledge based mean force potential at the profile level. BMC Bioinformatics 7: 324 (2006).
33. Ferrada, E., Vergara, I. A. & Melo, F. Aknowledge based potential with an accurate description of local interactions improves discrimination between native and near native protein conformations. Cell Biochem Biophys. 49, 111-24 (2007). (Pubitemid 47574996)
34. Lou, M., Dousis, A. D. & Ma, J. OPUS-PSP: An orientation dependent Statistical Allatom Potential derived from Side chain packing. J. Mol. Biol. 376, 288-301 (2008).
35. Benkert, P., Tosatto, S. C. E. & Schomburg, D. QMEAN: A comprehensive scoring function for model quality assessment. Proteins 71, 267-277 (2008).
36. Benkert, P., Kunzli, M. & Schwede, T. QMEAN server for protein quality estimation. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 510-514 (2009).
37. Buchete, N.-V., Straub, J. E. & Thirumalai, D. Dissecting contact potentials for proteins: Relative contributions of individual amino acids. Proteins 70, 119-130 (2008). (Pubitemid 350293454)
38. Connolly, M. L. Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science 221, 709-713 (1983).
39. Zemla, A. LGA: a method for finding 3d similarities in protein structures. Nucl. Ac. Res. 31, 3370-3374 (2003). (Pubitemid 37442162)
40. Bogatyreva, N. S. & Finkelstein AV. Cunning simplicity of protein folding landscapes. Prot, Eng. 14, 521-523 (2001). (Pubitemid 32959474)
41. Berrera, M., Molinari, H. & Fogolari, F. Amino acid empirical contact energy definitions for fold recognition in the space of contact maps. BMC Bioinformatics 4, 8 (2003).
42. Kabsch, W. & Sander, C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure pattern recognition of hydrogen bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers, 22, 2257-2637 (1983).
43. Trovato, A., Chiti, F., Maritan, A. & Seno, F. Insight into the structure of amyloid fibrils from the analysis of globular proteins. Plos Comp. Biol. 2, 1602-1618 (2006).
44. Varshney, A., Brooks, F. P. & Wright, W. V. Computing smooth molecularsurfaces. IEEE Computer Graphycs and applications. 14, 19-25 (1994).
45. Humphrey, W., Dalke, A. & Schulten, K. VMD: Visual molecular dynamics. Jour. Mol. Gra. 14, 33 (1996).
46. Lovell, S. C. et al. Structure validation by Calpha geometry: phi, psi and Cbeta deviation. Proteins 50, 437-50 (2003).
47. Orengo, C. et al. CATH-A Hierarchic Classification of Protein Domain Structures. Structure, 5, 1093-1108 (1997). (Pubitemid 27393093)
48. Piana, S. & Laio, A. A bias-exchange approach to protein folding. J. Phys. Chem. B. 111, 4553-4559 (2007). (Pubitemid 46787652)
49. Lindahl, E., Hess, B. & van der Spoel, D. GROMACS 3. 0: a package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. J. Mol. Mod. 7, 306-317 (2001). (Pubitemid 36153547)
50. Lindorff-Larsen, K. et al. Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 78, 1950-1958 (2010).
51. Jorgensen, W. L., Chandrasekhar, J., Madura, J. D., Impey, R. W. & Klein, M. L. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 79, 926-935 (1983).
52. Onufriev, A., Bashford, D. & Case, D. A. Exploring protein native states and largescale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 55, 383-394 (2004). (Pubitemid 38437495)
53. Cossio, P. et al. Exploring the universe of protein strucutres beyond the protein data bank. Plos Compt. Biol 6, 11 (2010).
54. Siew, N., Elofsson, A., Rychlewski, L. & Fischer, D. MaxSub: an automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality. Bioinformatics 16, 776-85 (2000).