Protein structure refinement via molecular-dynamics simulations: What works and what does not?

Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics

Volumn 84, Issue S1, 2016, Pages 282-292

  Feig, Michael ^a,b   Mirjalili, Vahid ^a,c  

^a Michigan State University   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Michigan State University   (United States)

Author keywords

CASP; Molprobity; protein; scoring; structure prediction

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ALPHA HELIX; BETA SHEET; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; HUMAN; INTERNET; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PROCEDURES; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN MOTIF; PROTEIN TERTIARY STRUCTURE; SOFTWARE; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ALGORITHMS; AMINO ACID MOTIFS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; HUMANS; INTERNET; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION; PROTEIN CONFORMATION, ALPHA-HELICAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION, BETA-STRAND; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN INTERACTION DOMAINS AND MOTIFS; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84940190876     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.24871     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Huang YJP, Mao BC, Aramini JM, Montelione GT. Assessment of template-based protein structure predictions in CASP10. Proteins 2014;82:43–56.
2. Zhang Y. Protein structure prediction: when is it useful? Curr Opin Struct Biol 2009;19:145–155.
3. Kryshtafovych A, Fidelis K, Moult J. CASP10 results compared to those of previous CASP experiments. Proteins 2014;82:164–174.
4. Nugent T, Jones DT. Accurate de novo structure prediction of large transmembrane protein domains using fragment-assembly and correlated mutation analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109:E1540–E1547.
5. Lindorff-Larsen K, Piana S, Dror RO, Shaw DE. How fast-folding proteins fold. Science 2011;334:517–520.
6. Davtyan A, Schafer NP, Zheng WH, Clementi C, Wolynes PG, Papoian GA. AWSEM-MD: protein structure prediction using coarse-grained physical potentials and bioinformatically based local structure biasing. J Phys Chem B 2012;116:8494–8503.
7. Xu D, Zhang J, Roy A, Zhang Y. Automated protein structure modeling in CASP9 by I-TASSER pipeline combined with QUARK-based ab initio folding and FG-MD-based structure refinement. Proteins 2011;79:147–160.
8. Summa CM, Levitt M. Near-native structure refinement using in vacuo energy minimization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007;104:3177–3182.
9. Stumpff-Kane AW, Maksimiak K, Lee MS, Feig M. Sampling of near-native protein conformations during protein structure refinement using a coarse-grained model, normal modes, and molecular dynamics simulations. Proteins 2008;70:1345–1356.
10. Olson MA, Chaudhury S, Lee MS. Comparison between self-guided Langevin dynamics and molecular dynamics simulations for structure refinement of protein loop conformations. J Comput Chem 2011;32:3014–3022.
11. Rodrigues JPGLM, Levitt M, Chopra G. KoBaMIN: a knowledge-based minimization web server for protein structure refinement. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:W323–W328.
12. Olson MA, Lee MS. Evaluation of unrestrained replica-exchange simulations using dynamic walkers in temperature space for protein structure refinement. Plos One 2014;9:e96638.
13. Mirjalili V, Noyes K, Feig M. Physics-based protein structure refinement through multiple molecular dynamics trajectories and structure averaging. Proteins 2014;82:196–207.
14. Mirjalili V, Feig M. Protein structure refinement through structure selection and averaging from molecular dynamics ensembles. J Chem Theory Comput 2013;9:1294–1303.
15. MacCallum JL, Perez A, Schnieders MJ, Hua L, Jacobson MP, Dill KA. Assessment of protein structure refinement in CASP9. Proteins 2011;79:74–90.
16. Lu H, Skolnick J. Application of statistical potentials to protein structure refinement from low resolution ab initio models. Biopolymers 2003;70:575–584.
17. Lindert S, Meiler J, McCammon JA. Iterative molecular dynamics-rosetta protein structure refinement protocol to improve model quality. J Chem Theory Comput 2013;9:3843–3847.
18. Larsen AB, Wagner JR, Jain A, Vaidehi N. Protein structure refinement of CASP target proteins using GNEIMO torsional dynamics method. J Chem Inf Model 2014;54:508–517.
19. Heo L, Park H, Seok C. GalaxyRefine: protein structure refinement driven by side-chain repacking. Nucleic Acids Res 2013;41:W384–W388.
20. Chitsaz M, Mayo SL. GRID: a high-resolution protein structure refinement algorithm. J Comput Chem 2013;34:445–450.
21. Bhattacharya D, Cheng JL. 3Drefine: consistent protein structure refinement by optimizing hydrogen bonding network and atomic-level energy minimization. Proteins 2013;81:119–131.
22. Chen JH, Brooks CL. Can molecular dynamics simulations provide high-resolution refinement of protein structure? Proteins 2007;67:922–930.
23. Xun S, Jiang F, Wu Y-D. Significant refinement of protein structure models using a residue-specific force field. J Chem Theory Comput 2015;11:1949–1956.
24. Park H, Seok C. Refinement of unreliable local regions in template-based protein models. Proteins 2012;80:1974–1986.
25. Park H, Ko J, Joo K, Lee J, Seok C, Lee J. Refinement of protein termini in template-based modeling using conformational space annealing. Proteins 2011;79:2725–2734.
26. Nugent T, Cozzetto D, Jones DT. Evaluation of predictions in the CASP10 model refinement category. Proteins 2014;82:98–111.
27. Park H, DiMaio F, Baker D. The origin of consistent protein structure refinement from structural averaging. Structure 2015;23:1–6.
28. Best RB, Zhu X, Shim J, Lopes P, Mittal J, Feig M, MacKerell AD, Jr. Optimization of the additive CHARMM all-atom protein force field targeting improved sampling of the backbone ϕ, ψ and side-chain χ1 and χ2 dihedral angles. J Chem Theory Comput 2012;8:3257–3273.
29. MacKerell AD, Jr., Bashford D, Bellott M, Dunbrack JD, Evanseck MJ, Field MJ, Fischer S, Gao J, Guo H, Ha S, Joseph-McCarthy D, Kuchnir L, Kuczera K, Lau FTK, Mattos C, Michnick S, Ngo T, Nguyen DT, Prodhom B, Reiher WE, Roux B, Schlenkrich M, Smith JC, Stote R, Straub J, Watanabe M, Wiorkiewicz-Kuczera J, Yin D, Karplus M. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J Phys Chem B 1998;102:3586–3616.
30. Darden TA, York D, Pedersen LG. Particle mesh Ewald: an Nlog(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J Chem Phys 1993;98:10089–10092.
31. Phillips JC, Braun R, Wang W, Gumbart J, Tajkhorshid E, Villa E, Chipot C, Skeel RD, Kale L, Schulten K. Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. J Comput Chem 2005;26:1781–1802.
32. Zhang J, Zhang Y. A novel side-chain orientation dependent potential derived from random-walk reference state for protein fold selection and structure prediction. Plos One 2010;5:e15386.
33. Zhou HY, Zhou YQ. 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.
34. Chen VB, Arendall WB, Headd JJ, Keedy DA, Immormino RM, Kapral GJ, Murray LW, Richardson JS, Richardson DC. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr D 2010;66:12–21.
35. Feig M, Karanicolas J, Brooks IIICL. MMTSB tool set: enhanced sampling and multiscale modeling methods for applications in structural biology. J Mol Graph Model 2004;22:377–395.
36. Feig M, Rotkiewicz P, Kolinski A, Skolnick J, Brooks CLI. Accurate reconstruction of all-atom protein representations from side-chain-based low-resolution models. Proteins 2000;41:86–97.