Literature DB >> 15454426

How does averaging affect protein structure comparison on the ensemble level?

Bojan Zagrovic1, Vijay S Pande.   

Abstract

Recent algorithmic advances and continual increase in computational power have made it possible to simulate protein folding and dynamics on the level of ensembles. Furthermore, analyzing protein structure by using ensemble representation is intrinsic to certain experimental techniques, such as nuclear magnetic resonance. This creates a problem of how to compare an ensemble of molecules with a given reference structure. Recently, we used distance-based root-mean-square deviation (dRMS) to compare the native structure of a protein with its unfolded-state ensemble. We showed that for small, mostly alpha-helical proteins, the mean unfolded-state Calpha-Calpha distance matrix is significantly more nativelike than the Calpha-Calpha matrices corresponding to the individual members of the unfolded ensemble. Here, we give a mathematical derivation that shows that, for any ensemble of structures, the dRMS deviation between the ensemble-averaged distance matrix and any given reference distance matrix is always less than or equal to the average dRMS deviation of the individual members of the ensemble from the same reference matrix. This holds regardless of the nature of the reference structure or the structural ensemble in question. In other words, averaging of distance matrices can only increase their level of similarity to a given reference matrix, relative to the individual matrices comprising the ensemble. Furthermore, we show that the above inequality holds in the case of Cartesian coordinate-based root-mean-square deviation as well. We discuss this in the context of our proposal that the average structure of the unfolded ensemble of small helical proteins is close to the native structure, and demonstrate that this finding goes beyond the above mathematical fact. Copyright 2004 Biophysical Society

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15454426      PMCID: PMC1304649          DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.104.042184

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biophys J        ISSN: 0006-3495            Impact factor:   4.033


  21 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.  Exploring the energy landscape of a beta hairpin in explicit solvent.

Authors:  A E García; K Y Sanbonmatsu
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2001-02-15

Review 3.  From folding theories to folding proteins: a review and assessment of simulation studies of protein folding and unfolding.

Authors:  J E Shea; C L Brooks
Journal:  Annu Rev Phys Chem       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 12.703

4.  The Key to Solving the Protein-Folding Problem Lies in an Accurate Description of the Denatured State Financial support from the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds (Project no. 21-50929.97) is gratefully acknowledged.

Authors:  Wilfred F. van Gunsteren; Roland Bürgi; Christine Peter; Xavier Daura
Journal:  Angew Chem Int Ed Engl       Date:  2001-01-19       Impact factor: 15.336

5.  Protein folding and unfolding in microseconds to nanoseconds by experiment and simulation.

Authors:  U Mayor; C M Johnson; V Daggett; A R Fersht
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-12-05       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 6.  Toward a taxonomy of the denatured state: small angle scattering studies of unfolded proteins.

Authors:  Ian S Millett; Sebastian Doniach; Kevin W Plaxco
Journal:  Adv Protein Chem       Date:  2002

7.  Atomistic protein folding simulations on the submillisecond time scale using worldwide distributed computing.

Authors:  Vijay S Pande; Ian Baker; Jarrod Chapman; Sidney P Elmer; Siraj Khaliq; Stefan M Larson; Young Min Rhee; Michael R Shirts; Christopher D Snow; Eric J Sorin; Bojan Zagrovic
Journal:  Biopolymers       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.505

8.  Analysis of the distributed computing approach applied to the folding of a small beta peptide.

Authors:  Emanuele Paci; Andrea Cavalli; Michele Vendruscolo; Amedeo Caflisch
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-06-18       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  All-atom structure prediction and folding simulations of a stable protein.

Authors:  Carlos Simmerling; Bentley Strockbine; Adrian E Roitberg
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2002-09-25       Impact factor: 15.419

10.  NMR structure of the 35-residue villin headpiece subdomain.

Authors:  C J McKnight; P T Matsudaira; P S Kim
Journal:  Nat Struct Biol       Date:  1997-03
View more
  8 in total

1.  Residue-level global and local ensemble-ensemble comparisons of protein domains.

Authors:  Sarah A Clark; Dale E Tronrud; P Andrew Karplus
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2015-06-22       Impact factor: 6.725

2.  Molecular dynamics simulation of triclinic lysozyme in a crystal lattice.

Authors:  Pawel A Janowski; Chunmei Liu; Jason Deckman; David A Case
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 6.725

3.  Towards site-based protein functional annotations.

Authors:  Seak Fei Lei; Jun Huan
Journal:  Int J Data Min Bioinform       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 0.667

4.  Distance-Based Metrics for Comparing Conformational Ensembles of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins.

Authors:  Tamas Lazar; Mainak Guharoy; Wim Vranken; Sarah Rauscher; Shoshana J Wodak; Peter Tompa
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 4.033

5.  FoldGPCR: structure prediction protocol for the transmembrane domain of G protein-coupled receptors from class A.

Authors:  Mayako Michino; Jianhan Chen; Raymond C Stevens; Charles L Brooks
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2010-08-01

6.  Improving consensus structure by eliminating averaging artifacts.

Authors:  B K C Dukka
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2009-03-06

7.  E9-Im9 colicin DNase-immunity protein biomolecular association in water: a multiple-copy and accelerated molecular dynamics simulation study.

Authors:  Riccardo Baron; Sergio E Wong; Cesar A F de Oliveira; J Andrew McCammon
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2008-12-25       Impact factor: 2.991

8.  Protein local 3D structure prediction by Super Granule Support Vector Machines (Super GSVM).

Authors:  Bernard Chen; Matthew Johnson
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 3.169

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.