3Drefine: Consistent protein structure refinement by optimizing hydrogen bonding network and atomic-level energy minimization

Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 119-131

  Bhattacharya, Debswapna ^a   Cheng, Jianlin ^a,b  

^a University of Missouri   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Energy minimization; Hydrogen bonding network; Protein energy; Protein structure prediction; Protein structure refinement; Statistical potential

Indexed keywords

HYDROGEN;

ARTICLE; ATOM; COMPUTER MODEL; ENERGY CONSERVATION; HYDROGEN BOND; MOLECULAR MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; QUALITY CONTROL; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; HYDROGEN BONDING; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; SOFTWARE; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 84871034858     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.24167     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Sali A, Blundell T. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol 1993; 234: 779-815.
2. Fischer D. 3D-SHOTGUN: a novel, cooperative, fold-recognition meta-predictor. Proteins 2003; 51: 434-441.
3. Cheng J. A multi-template combination algorithm for protein comparative modeling. BMC Struct Biol 2008; 8: 18.
4. Wu S, Zhang Y. LOMETS: a local meta-threading-server for protein structure prediction. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35: 3375-3382.
5. Zhang Y. Template-based modeling and free modeling by I-TASSER in CASP7. Proteins 2007; 69: 108-117.
6. Joo K, Lee J, Lee S, Seo JH, Lee SJ. High accuracy template based modeling by global optimization. Proteins 2007; 69: 83-89.
7. Misura KMS, 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 USA 2006; 103: 5361-5366.
8. Wang Q, Canutescu AA, Dunbrack RL. SCWRL and MolIDE: computer programs for side-chain conformation prediction and homology modeling. Nat Protoc 2008; 3: 1832-1847.
9. Krivov GG, Shapovalov MV, Dunbrack RL, Jr. Improved prediction of protein side-chain conformations with SCWRL4. Proteins 2009; 77: 778-795.
10. Levitt M. Accurate modeling of protein conformation by automatic segment matching. J Mol Biol 1992; 226: 507-533.
11. Eswar N, Webb B, Marti-Renom MA, Madhusudhan M, Eramian D, Shen MY, Pieper U, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling using Modeller. Curr Protoc Protein Sci 2007; 2: 15-32.
12. Qian B, Raman S, Das R, Bradley P, McCoy AJ, et al. High-resolution structure prediction and the crystallographic phase problem. Nature 2007; 450: 259-264.
13. MacCallum JL, Hua L, Schnieders MJ, Pande VS, Jacobson MP, et al. Assessment of the protein-structure refinement category in CASP8. Proteins 2009; 77: 66-80.
14. MacCallum JL, Pérez A, Schnieders MJ, Hua L, Jacobson MP, et al. Assessment of protein structure refinement in CASP9. Proteins 2011; 79(Suppl 10): 74-90.
15. 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.
16. Summa CM, Levitt M. Near-native structure refinement using in vacuo energy minimization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104: 3177.
17. Chopra G, Kalisman N, Levitt M. Consistent refinement of submitted models at CASP using a knowledge-based potential. Proteins 2010; 78: 2668-2678.
18. Zhang J, Liang Y, Zhang Y. Atomic-level protein structure refinement using fragment-guided molecular dynamics conformation sampling. Structure 2011; 19: 1784-1795.
19. Kalisman N, Levi A, Maximova T, Reshef D, Zafriri-Lynn S, et al. MESHI: a new library of Java classes for molecular modeling. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: 3931-3932.
20. Rose GD, Fleming PJ, Banavar JR, Maritan A. A backbone-based theory of protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 16623-16633.
21. Dill KA, Bromberg S, Yue K, Fiebig KM, Yee DP, et al. Principles of protein folding--a perspective from simple exact models. Protein Sci 1995; 4: 561.
22. Wallin S, Shakhnovich EI. Understanding ensemble protein folding at atomic detail. J Phys 2008; 20: 283101.
23. Engler N, Ostermann A, Niimura N, Parak FG. Hydrogen atoms in proteins: positions and dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: 10243.
24. McDonald IK, Thornton JM. Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins. J Mol Biol 1994; 238: 777-793.
25. Chen J, Brooks CL, III. Can molecular dynamics simulations provide high-resolution refinement of protein structure? Proteins 2007; 67: 922-930.
26. Vriend G. WHAT IF: a molecular modeling and drug design program. J Mol Graph 1990; 8: 52.
27. Brünger AT, Karplus M. Polar hydrogen positions in proteins: empirical energy placement and neutron diffraction comparison. Proteins 1988; 4: 148-156.
28. Word JM, Lovell SC, Richardson JS, Richardson DC. Asparagine and glutamine: using hydrogen atom contacts in the choice of side-chain amide orientation1. J Mol Biol 1999; 285: 1735-1747.
29. Li Y, Roy A, Zhang Y. HAAD: a quick algorithm for accurate prediction of hydrogen atoms in protein structures. PloS one 2009; 4: e6701.
30. Levitt M, Hirshberg M, Sharon R, Daggett V. Potential energy function and parameters for simulations of the molecular dynamics of proteins and nucleic acids in solution. Comput Phys Commun 1995; 91: 215-231.
31. Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers 1983; 22: 2577-2637.
32. Amir EAD, Kalisman N, Keasar C. Differentiable, multi-dimensional, knowledge-based energy terms for torsion angle probabilities and propensities. Proteins 2008; 72: 62-73.
33. Friedel M, Baumketner A, Shea JE. Effects of surface tethering on protein folding mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 8396-8401.
34. Liu DC, Nocedal J. On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Math Prog 1989; 45: 503-528.
35. Moult J, Hubbard T, Fidelis K, Pedersen JT. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP): round III. Proteins 1999; 37: 2-6.
36. Wang Z, Eickholt J, Cheng J. MULTICOM: a multi-level combination approach to protein structure prediction and its assessments in CASP8. Bioinformatics 2010; 26: 882-888.
37. Zemla A. LGA: a method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res 2003; 31: 3370-3374.
38. Zhang Y, Skolnick J. Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins 2004; 57: 702-710.
39. Kabsch W. A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Acta Crystallogr A 1976; 32: 922-923.
40. Chen VB, Arendall WB, Headd JJ, Keedy DA, Immormino RM, et al. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr D 2009; 66: 12-21.
41. Kopp J, Bordoli L, Battey JND, Kiefer F, Schwede T. Assessment of CASP7 predictions for template-based modeling targets. Proteins 2007; 69: 38-56.
42. Cozzetto D, Kryshtafovych A, Fidelis K, Moult J, Rost B, et al. Evaluation of template-based models in CASP8 with standard measures. Proteins 2009; 77: 18-28.
43. Keedy DA, Williams CJ, Headd JJ, Arendall IIIWB, Chen VB, et al. The other 90% of the protein: Assessment beyond the Cαs for CASP8 template-based and high-accuracy models. Proteins 2009; 77: 29-49.
44. Levitt M, Gerstein M. A unified statistical framework for sequence comparison and structure comparison. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998; 95: 5913.
45. Xu J, Zhang Y. How significant is a protein structure similarity with TM-score= 0.5? Bioinformatics 2010; 26: 889-895.
46. Lovell SC, Word JM, Richardson JS, Richardson DC. The penultimate rotamer library. Proteins 2000; 40: 389-408.
47. Arendall WB, Tempel W, Richardson JS, Zhou W, Wang S, Davis IW, Liu ZJ, Rose JP, Carson WM, Luo M. A test of enhancing model accuracy in high-throughput crystallography. J Struct Funct Genomics 2005; 6: 1-11.
48. Davis IW, Leaver-Fay A, Chen VB, Block JN, Kapral GJ, Wang X, Murray LW, Arendall III WB, Snoeyink J, Richardson JS. MolProbity: all-atom contacts and structure validation for proteins and nucleic acids. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35(suppl 2): W375-W383.
49. Keedy DA, Williams CJ, Headd JJ, Arendall WBIII, Chen VB, Kapral GJ, Gillespie RA, Block JN, Zemla A, Richardson DC. The other 90% of the protein: Assessment beyond the Cαs for CASP8 template-based and high-accuracy models. Proteins 2009; 77(S9): 29-49.
50. Kryshtafovych A, Venclovas Č, Fidelis K, Moult J. Progress over the first decade of CASP experiments. Proteins 2005; 61: 225-236.
51. Keskin O, Bahar I. Packing of sidechains in low-resolution models for proteins. Fold Des 1998; 3: 469-479.
52. Wieman H, Kristin T, Anderssen E, Drablos F. Homology-based modelling of targets for rational drug design. Mini Rev Med Chem 2004; 4: 793-804.
53. Méndez R, Leplae R, Lensink MF, Wodak SJ. Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3-5 shows progress in docking procedures. Proteins 2005; 60: 150-169.
54. Arakaki AK, Zhang Y, Skolnick J. Large-scale assessment of the utility of low-resolution protein structures for biochemical function assignment. Bioinformatics 2004; 20: 1087-1096.