Literature DB >> 12142448

Contact order and ab initio protein structure prediction.

Richard Bonneau1, Ingo Ruczinski, Jerry Tsai, David Baker.   

Abstract

Although much of the motivation for experimental studies of protein folding is to obtain insights for improving protein structure prediction, there has been relatively little connection between experimental protein folding studies and computational structural prediction work in recent years. In the present study, we show that the relationship between protein folding rates and the contact order (CO) of the native structure has implications for ab initio protein structure prediction. Rosetta ab initio folding simulations produce a dearth of high CO structures and an excess of low CO structures, as expected if the computer simulations mimic to some extent the actual folding process. Consistent with this, the majority of failures in ab initio prediction in the CASP4 (critical assessment of structure prediction) experiment involved high CO structures likely to fold much more slowly than the lower CO structures for which reasonable predictions were made. This bias against high CO structures can be partially alleviated by performing large numbers of additional simulations, selecting out the higher CO structures, and eliminating the very low CO structures; this leads to a modest improvement in prediction quality. More significant improvements in predictions for proteins with complex topologies may be possible following significant increases in high-performance computing power, which will be required for thoroughly sampling high CO conformations (high CO proteins can take six orders of magnitude longer to fold than low CO proteins). Importantly for such a strategy, simulations performed for high CO structures converge much less strongly than those for low CO structures, and hence, lack of simulation convergence can indicate the need for improved sampling of high CO conformations. The parallels between Rosetta simulations and folding in vivo may extend to misfolding: The very low CO structures that accumulate in Rosetta simulations consist primarily of local up-down beta-sheets that may resemble precursors to amyloid formation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12142448      PMCID: PMC2373674          DOI: 10.1110/ps.3790102

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


  25 in total

1.  A combined approach for ab initio construction of low resolution protein tertiary structures from sequence.

Authors:  R Samudrala; Y Xia; M Levitt; E S Huang
Journal:  Pac Symp Biocomput       Date:  1999

2.  Improving the performance of Rosetta using multiple sequence alignment information and global measures of hydrophobic core formation.

Authors:  R Bonneau; C E Strauss; D Baker
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2001-04-01

Review 3.  Mechanisms of protein folding.

Authors:  V Grantcharova; E J Alm; D Baker; A L Horwich
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 6.809

4.  Prospects for ab initio protein structural genomics.

Authors:  K T Simons; C Strauss; D Baker
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2001-03-09       Impact factor: 5.469

5.  De novo protein structure determination using sparse NMR data.

Authors:  P M Bowers; C E Strauss; D Baker
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.835

Review 6.  Is protein folding hierarchic? II. Folding intermediates and transition states.

Authors:  R L Baldwin; G D Rose
Journal:  Trends Biochem Sci       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 13.807

7.  Cryo-electron microscopy structure of an SH3 amyloid fibril and model of the molecular packing.

Authors:  J L Jiménez; J I Guijarro; E Orlova; J Zurdo; C M Dobson; M Sunde; H R Saibil
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  1999-02-15       Impact factor: 11.598

Review 8.  Functional inferences from blind ab initio protein structure predictions.

Authors:  R Bonneau; J Tsai; I Ruczinski; D Baker
Journal:  J Struct Biol       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.867

Review 9.  Topology, stability, sequence, and length: defining the determinants of two-state protein folding kinetics.

Authors:  K W Plaxco; K T Simons; I Ruczinski; D Baker
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2000-09-19       Impact factor: 3.162

10.  Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins.

Authors:  K T Simons; I Ruczinski; C Kooperberg; B A Fox; C Bystroff; D Baker
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1999-01-01
View more
  40 in total

1.  EM-fold: de novo atomic-detail protein structure determination from medium-resolution density maps.

Authors:  Steffen Lindert; Nathan Alexander; Nils Wötzel; Mert Karakaş; Phoebe L Stewart; Jens Meiler
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 5.006

2.  Some fundamental aspects of building protein structures from fragment libraries.

Authors:  J Bradley Holmes; Jerry Tsai
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.725

3.  Protein fragment reconstruction using various modeling techniques.

Authors:  Michal Boniecki; Piotr Rotkiewicz; Jeffrey Skolnick; Andrzej Kolinski
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Ab initio protein modeling into CryoEM density maps using EM-Fold.

Authors:  Steffen Lindert; Tommy Hofmann; Nils Wötzel; Mert Karakaş; Phoebe L Stewart; Jens Meiler
Journal:  Biopolymers       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 2.505

5.  Fold assessment for comparative protein structure modeling.

Authors:  Francisco Melo; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2007-09-28       Impact factor: 6.725

6.  De novo high-resolution protein structure determination from sparse spin-labeling EPR data.

Authors:  Nathan Alexander; Marco Bortolus; Ahmad Al-Mestarihi; Hassane Mchaourab; Jens Meiler
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 5.006

7.  A novel topology for representing protein folds.

Authors:  Mark R Segal
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 6.725

8.  Structure prediction for CASP8 with all-atom refinement using Rosetta.

Authors:  Srivatsan Raman; Robert Vernon; James Thompson; Michael Tyka; Ruslan Sadreyev; Jimin Pei; David Kim; Elizabeth Kellogg; Frank DiMaio; Oliver Lange; Lisa Kinch; Will Sheffler; Bong-Hyun Kim; Rhiju Das; Nick V Grishin; David Baker
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2009

9.  BCL::contact-low confidence fold recognition hits boost protein contact prediction and de novo structure determination.

Authors:  Mert Karakaş; Nils Woetzel; Jens Meiler
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.479

10.  EM-fold: De novo folding of alpha-helical proteins guided by intermediate-resolution electron microscopy density maps.

Authors:  Steffen Lindert; René Staritzbichler; Nils Wötzel; Mert Karakaş; Phoebe L Stewart; Jens Meiler
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 5.006

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.