Literature DB >> 12910459

How well can we predict native contacts in proteins based on decoy structures and their energies?

Jiang Zhu1, Qianqian Zhu, Yunyu Shi, Haiyan Liu.   

Abstract

One strategy for ab initio protein structure prediction is to generate a large number of possible structures (decoys) and select the most fitting ones based on a scoring or free energy function. The conformational space of a protein is huge, and chances are rare that any heuristically generated structure will directly fall in the neighborhood of the native structure. It is desirable that, instead of being thrown away, the unfitting decoy structures can provide insights into native structures so prediction can be made progressively. First, we demonstrate that a recently parameterized physics-based effective free energy function based on the GROMOS96 force field and a generalized Born/surface area solvent model is, as several other physics-based and knowledge-based models, capable of distinguishing native structures from decoy structures for a number of widely used decoy databases. Second, we observe a substantial increase in correlations of the effective free energies with the degree of similarity between the decoys and the native structure, if the similarity is measured by the content of native inter-residue contacts in a decoy structure rather than its root-mean-square deviation from the native structure. Finally, we investigate the possibility of predicting native contacts based on the frequency of occurrence of contacts in decoy structures. For most proteins contained in the decoy databases, a meaningful amount of native contacts can be predicted based on plain frequencies of occurrence at a relatively high level of accuracy. Relative to using plain frequencies, overwhelming improvements in sensitivity of the predictions are observed for the 4_state_reduced decoy sets by applying energy-dependent weighting of decoy structures in determining the frequency. There, approximately 80% native contacts can be predicted at an accuracy of approximately 80% using energy-weighted frequencies. The sensitivity of the plain frequency approach is much lower (20% to 40%). Such improvements are, however, not observed for the other decoy databases. The rationalization and implications of the results are discussed. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12910459     DOI: 10.1002/prot.10444

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proteins        ISSN: 0887-3585


  9 in total

1.  A composite score for predicting errors in protein structure models.

Authors:  David Eramian; Min-yi Shen; Damien Devos; Francisco Melo; Andrej Sali; Marc A Marti-Renom
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2006-06-02       Impact factor: 6.725

2.  Comparison between Generalized-Born and Poisson-Boltzmann methods in physics-based scoring functions for protein structure prediction.

Authors:  Matthew C Lee; Rong Yang; Yong Duan
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2005-08-12       Impact factor: 1.810

3.  Use of decoys to optimize an all-atom force field including hydration.

Authors:  Yelena A Arnautova; Harold A Scheraga
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2008-05-23       Impact factor: 4.033

4.  A pairwise residue contact area-based mean force potential for discrimination of native protein structure.

Authors:  Shahriar Arab; Mehdi Sadeghi; Changiz Eslahchi; Hamid Pezeshk; Armita Sheari
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-01-09       Impact factor: 3.169

5.  Combining physicochemical and evolutionary information for protein contact prediction.

Authors:  Michael Schneider; Oliver Brock
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  EPSILON-CP: using deep learning to combine information from multiple sources for protein contact prediction.

Authors:  Kolja Stahl; Michael Schneider; Oliver Brock
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Artefacts and biases affecting the evaluation of scoring functions on decoy sets for protein structure prediction.

Authors:  Julia Handl; Joshua Knowles; Simon C Lovell
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 6.937

8.  Evolutionary potentials: structure specific knowledge-based potentials exploiting the evolutionary record of sequence homologs.

Authors:  Alejandro Panjkovich; Francisco Melo; Marc A Marti-Renom
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2008-04-08       Impact factor: 13.583

9.  Improved protein structure selection using decoy-dependent discriminatory functions.

Authors:  Kai Wang; Boris Fain; Michael Levitt; Ram Samudrala
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2004-06-18
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.