A large-scale conformation sampling and evaluation server for protein tertiary structure prediction and its assessment in CASP11

BMC Bioinformatics

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Li, Jilong ^a   Cao, Renzhi ^a   Cheng, Jianlin ^a,b  

^a University of Missouri   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Model evaluation; Model generation; Protein structure prediction; Sequence alignment; Template based modeling; Template free modeling

Indexed keywords

CONFORMATIONS; FORECASTING; FUNCTION EVALUATION; PROTEINS;

MODEL EVALUATION; MODEL GENERATION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE PREDICTION; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENTS; TEMPLATE-BASED MODELING; TEMPLATE-FREE MODELING;

QUALITY CONTROL;

PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; GENOMICS; PROCEDURES; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN TERTIARY STRUCTURE;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; GENOMICS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS;

EID: 84945117520     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-015-0775-x     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Eisenhaber F, Persson B, Argos P. Protein structure prediction: recognition of primary, secondary, and tertiary structural features from amino acid sequence. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 1995;30:1-94.
2. Rost B. Protein structure prediction in 1D, 2D, and 3D. Encyclop Comput Chem. 1998;3:2242-55.
3. Anfinsen CB, Haber E, Sela M, White Jr F. The kinetics of formation of native ribonuclease during oxidation of the reduced polypeptide chain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1961;47:1309.
4. Floudas C. Computational methods in protein structure prediction. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2007;97:207-13.
5. Shah M, Passovets S, Kim D, Ellrott K, Wang L, Vokler I, et al. A computational pipeline for protein structure prediction and analysis at genome scale. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:1985.
6. Fox BG, Goulding C, Malkowski MG, Stewart L, Deacon A. Structural genomics: from genes to structures with valuable materials and many questions in between. Nat Methods. 2008;5:129-32.
7. Lemer CMR, Rooman MJ, Wodak SJ. Protein structure prediction by threading methods: evaluation of current techniques. Proteins. 1995;23:337-55.
8. Moult J, Pedersen JT, Judson R, Fidelis K. A large-scale experiment to assess protein structure prediction methods. Proteins. 1995;23:ii-v.
9. Lundström J, Rychlewski L, Bujnicki J, Elofsson A. Pcons: A neural-network-based consensus predictor that improves fold recognition. Protein Sci. 2001;10:2354-62.
10. Wallner B, Fang H, Elofsson A. Automatic consensus-based fold recognition using Pcons, ProQ, and Pmodeller. Proteins. 2003;53:534-41.
11. Källberg M, Wang H, Wang S, Peng J, Wang Z, Lu H, et al. Template-based protein structure modeling using the RaptorX web server. Nat Protoc. 2012;7:1511-22.
12. McGuffin LJ. The ModFOLD server for the quality assessment of protein structural models. Bioinformatics. 2008;24:586-7.
13. Zhou H, Zhou Y. Fold recognition by combining sequence profiles derived from evolution and from depth-dependent structural alignment of fragments. Proteins. 2005;58:321-8.
14. Jones D. GenTHREADER: an efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. J Mol Biol. 1999;287:797-815.
15. Roy A, Kucukural A, Zhang Y. I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nat Protoc. 2010;5:725-38.
16. Li J, Bhattacharya D, Cao R, Adhikari B, Deng X, Eickholt J, et al. The MULTICOM protein tertiary structure prediction system. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1137:29-41.
17. Li J, Adhikari B, Cheng J. An improved integration of template-based and template-free protein structure modeling methods and its assessment in CASP11. Protein Pept Lett. 2015;22:586-93.
18. Baú D, Martin A, Mooney C, Vullo A, Walsh I, Pollastri G. Distill: a suite of web servers for the prediction of one-, two-and three-dimensional structural features of proteins. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:402.
19. Simons K, 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;268:209-25.
20. Chothia C, Lesk AM. The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. EMBO J. 1986;5:823.
21. Bujnicki JM. Protein-structure prediction by recombination of fragments. Chembiochem. 2005;7:19-27.
22. Krieger E, Nabuurs SB, Vriend G. Homology modeling. Methods Biochem Anal. 2003;44:509-24.
23. Wang Z, Eickholt J, Cheng J. MULTICOM: a multi-level combination approach to protein structure prediction and its assessments in CASP8. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:882-8.
24. Li J, Deng X, Eickholt J, Cheng J. Designing and benchmarking the MULTICOM protein structure prediction system. BMC Struct Biol. 2013;13:2.
25. Cheng J, Li J, Wang Z, Eickholt J, Deng X. The MULTICOM toolbox for protein structure prediction. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13:65.
26. Cheng J, Wang Z, Eickholt J, Deng X. Recursive protein modeling: A divide and conquer strategy for protein structure prediction and its case study in CASP9. Bioinformatics and Biomedicine Workshops (BIBMW). 2011; IEEE: 352-357. doi: 10.1109/BIBMW.2011.6112398.
27. Cao R, Bhattacharya D, Adhikari B, Li J, Cheng J. Large-scale model quality asessment for improving protein tertiary structure prediction. 23rd international conference on intelligent systems for molecular biology (ISMB). Bioinformatics. 2015;31:i116-23.
28. Cao R, Bhattacharya D, Adhikari B, Li J, Cheng J. Massive integration of diverse protein quality assessment methods to improve template based modeling in CASP11. Proteins. 2015; Accepted. doi: 10.1002/prot.24924.
29. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25:3389-402.
30. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403-10.
31. Biegert A, Söding J. Sequence context-specific profiles for homology searching. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106:3770-5.
32. Hughey R, Krogh A. SAM: sequence alignment and modeling software system. Technical report: UCSC-CRL-95-07. Santa Cruz: University of California; 1995.
33. Finn RD, Clements J, Eddy SR. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:W29-37.
34. Bernstein FC, Koetzle TF, Williams GJB, Meyer EF. The protein data bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol. 1977;112:535-42.
35. Soding J. Protein homology detection by HMM-HMM comparison. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:951-60.
36. Remmert M, Biegert A, Hauser A, Söding J. HHblits: lightning-fast iterative protein sequence searching by HMM-HMM alignment. Nat Methods. 2012;9:173-5.
37. PRC: the profile comparer. http://supfam.org/PRC/ (2002). Accessed 20 May 2013.
38. Rychlewski L, Li W, Jaroszewski L, Godzik A. Comparison of sequence profiles. Strategies for structural predictions using sequence information. Protein Sci. 2000;9:232-41.
39. Jaroszewski L, Rychlewski L, Li Z, Li W, Godzik A. FFAS03: a server for profile-profile sequence alignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:W284-8.
40. Sadreyev R, Grishin N. COMPASS: a tool for comparison of multiple protein alignments with assessment of statistical significance. J Mol Biol. 2003;326:317-36.
41. Wu S, Zhang Y. MUSTER: improving protein sequence profile-profile alignments by using multiple sources of structure information. Proteins. 2008;72:547-56.
42. Cheng J. A multi-template combination algorithm for protein comparative modeling. BMC Struct Biol. 2008;8:18.
43. Edgar R. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792-7.
44. Edgar RC. MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinformatics. 2004;5:113.
45. Deng X, Cheng J. Enhancing HMM-based protein profile-profile alignment with structural features and evolutionary coupling information. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:252.
46. Liu Y, Schmidt B, Maskell DL. MSAProbs: multiple sequence alignment based on pair hidden Markov models and partition function posterior probabilities. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:1958-64.
47. Fiser A, Sali A. Modeller: generation and refinement of homology-based protein structure models. Methods Enzymol. 2003;374:461-91.
48. Šali A, Blundell TL. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol. 1993;234:779-815.
49. Leaver-Fay A, Tyka M, Lewis SM, Lange OF, Thompson J, Jacak R, et al. ROSETTA3: An object-oriented software suite for the simulation and design of macromolecules. Methods Enzymol. 2011;487:545-74.
50. McGuffin L, Roche D. Rapid model quality assessment for protein structure predictions using the comparison of multiple models without structural alignments. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:182-8.
51. Ray A, Lindahl E, Wallner B. Improved model quality assessment using ProQ2. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13:224.
52. Wallner B, Elofsson A. Identification of correct regions in protein models using structural, alignment, and consensus information. Protein Sci. 2006;15:900-13.
53. Wang Z, Eickholt J, Cheng J. APOLLO: a quality assessment service for single and multiple protein models. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1715-6.
54. Wang Z, Tegge AN, Cheng J. Evaluating the absolute quality of a single protein model using structural features and support vector machines. Proteins. 2009;75:638-47.
55. Randall A, Baldi P. SELECTpro: effective protein model selection using a structure-based energy function resistant to BLUNDERs. BMC Struct Biol. 2008;8:52.
56. Shen M. Sali A. Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci. 2006;15:2507-24.
57. 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;17:1212-9.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. Rykunov D, Fiser A. Effects of amino acid composition, finite size of proteins, and sparse statistics on distance-dependent statistical pair potentials. Proteins. 2007;67:559-68.
61. Zhang Y, Skolnick J. Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins. 2004;57:702-10.
62. Kryshtafovych A, Barbato A, Fidelis K, Monastyrskyy B, Schwede T, Tramontano A. Assessment of the assessment: evaluation of the model quality estimates in CASP10. Proteins. 2014;82:112-26.
63. Kryshtafovych A, Barbato A, Monastyrskyy B, Fidelis K, Schwede T, Tramontano A. Methods of model accuracy estimation can help selecting the best models from decoy sets: assessment of model accuracy estimations in CASP11. Proteins. 2015. doi: 10.1002/prot.24919.
64. Cao R, Wang Z, Wang Y, Cheng J. SMOQ: a tool for predicting the absolute residue-specific quality of a single protein model with support vector machines. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:120.
65. Cao R, Wang Z, Cheng J. Designing and evaluating the MULTICOM protein local and global model quality prediction methods in the CASP10 experiment. BMC Struct Biol. 2014;14:13.