Literature DB >> 11790853

Statistical potentials for fold assessment.

Francisco Melo1, Roberto Sánchez, Andrej Sali.   

Abstract

A protein structure model generally needs to be evaluated to assess whether or not it has the correct fold. To improve fold assessment, four types of a residue-level statistical potential were optimized, including distance-dependent, contact, Phi/Psi dihedral angle, and accessible surface statistical potentials. Approximately 10,000 test models with the correct and incorrect folds were built by automated comparative modeling of protein sequences of known structure. The criterion used to discriminate between the correct and incorrect models was the Z-score of the model energy. The performance of a Z-score was determined as a function of many variables in the derivation and use of the corresponding statistical potential. The performance was measured by the fractions of the correctly and incorrectly assessed test models. The most discriminating combination of any one of the four tested potentials is the sum of the normalized distance-dependent and accessible surface potentials. The distance-dependent potential that is optimal for assessing models of all sizes uses both C(alpha) and C(beta) atoms as interaction centers, distinguishes between all 20 standard residue types, has the distance range of 30 A, and is derived and used by taking into account the sequence separation of the interacting atom pairs. The terms for the sequentially local interactions are significantly less informative than those for the sequentially nonlocal interactions. The accessible surface potential that is optimal for assessing models of all sizes uses C(beta) atoms as interaction centers and distinguishes between all 20 standard residue types. The performance of the tested statistical potentials is not likely to improve significantly with an increase in the number of known protein structures used in their derivation. The parameters of fold assessment whose optimal values vary significantly with model size include the size of the known protein structures used to derive the potential and the distance range of the accessible surface potential. Fold assessment by statistical potentials is most difficult for the very small models. This difficulty presents a challenge to fold assessment in large-scale comparative modeling, which produces many small and incomplete models. The results described in this study provide a basis for an optimal use of statistical potentials in fold assessment.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11790853      PMCID: PMC2373452          DOI: 10.1002/pro.110430

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Protein Sci        ISSN: 0961-8368            Impact factor:   6.725


  102 in total

1.  The Protein Data Bank.

Authors:  H M Berman; J Westbrook; Z Feng; G Gilliland; T N Bhat; H Weissig; I N Shindyalov; P E Bourne
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  Derivation of protein-specific pair potentials based on weak sequence fragment similarity.

Authors:  J Skolnick; A Kolinski; A Ortiz
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2000-01-01

3.  Identifying sequence-structure pairs undetected by sequence alignments.

Authors:  S Miyazawa; R L Jernigan
Journal:  Protein Eng       Date:  2000-07

4.  Protein structure prediction and structural genomics.

Authors:  D Baker; A Sali
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-10-05       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  WHAT IF: a molecular modeling and drug design program.

Authors:  G Vriend
Journal:  J Mol Graph       Date:  1990-03

6.  Influence of protein structure databases on the predictive power of statistical pair potentials.

Authors:  E Furuichi; P Koehl
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1998-05-01

Review 7.  Perspectives in protein-fold recognition.

Authors:  A E Torda
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 6.809

Review 8.  Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding.

Authors:  S Vajda; M Sippl; J Novotny
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 6.809

Review 9.  Knowledge-based prediction of protein structures and the design of novel molecules.

Authors:  T L Blundell; B L Sibanda; M J Sternberg; J M Thornton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1987 Mar 26-Apr 1       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Large-scale protein structure modeling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome.

Authors:  R Sánchez; A Sali
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1998-11-10       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  141 in total

1.  Can correct protein models be identified?

Authors:  Björn Wallner; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.725

2.  Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction.

Authors:  Hongyi Zhou; Yaoqi Zhou
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 6.725

3.  MODBASE, a database of annotated comparative protein structure models, and associated resources.

Authors:  Ursula Pieper; Narayanan Eswar; Hannes Braberg; M S Madhusudhan; Fred P Davis; Ashley C Stuart; Nebojsa Mirkovic; Andrea Rossi; Marc A Marti-Renom; Andras Fiser; Ben Webb; Daniel Greenblatt; Conrad C Huang; Thomas E Ferrin; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  An accurate, residue-level, pair potential of mean force for folding and binding based on the distance-scaled, ideal-gas reference state.

Authors:  Chi Zhang; Song Liu; Hongyi Zhou; Yaoqi Zhou
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 6.725

5.  Tools for comparative protein structure modeling and analysis.

Authors:  Narayanan Eswar; Bino John; Nebojsa Mirkovic; Andras Fiser; Valentin A Ilyin; Ursula Pieper; Ashley C Stuart; Marc A Marti-Renom; M S Madhusudhan; Bozidar Yerkovich; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

6.  Comparative protein structure modeling by iterative alignment, model building and model assessment.

Authors:  Bino John; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-07-15       Impact factor: 16.971

7.  The dependence of all-atom statistical potentials on structural training database.

Authors:  Chi Zhang; Song Liu; Hongyi Zhou; Yaoqi Zhou
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.033

8.  Database-derived potentials dependent on protein size for in silico folding and design.

Authors:  Yves Dehouck; Dimitri Gilis; Marianne Rooman
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.033

9.  Self-complementarity within proteins: bridging the gap between binding and folding.

Authors:  Sankar Basu; Dhananjay Bhattacharyya; Rahul Banerjee
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 4.033

10.  Specific interaction between EF-G and RRF and its implication for GTP-dependent ribosome splitting into subunits.

Authors:  Ning Gao; Andrey V Zavialov; Måns Ehrenberg; Joachim Frank
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 5.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.