Literature DB >> 17876760

Prediction of protein loop conformations using multiscale modeling methods with physical energy scoring functions.

Mark A Olson1, Michael Feig, Charles L Brooks.   

Abstract

This article examines ab initio methods for the prediction of protein loops by a computational strategy of multiscale conformational sampling and physical energy scoring functions. Our approach consists of initial sampling of loop conformations from lattice-based low-resolution models followed by refinement using all-atom simulations. To allow enhanced conformational sampling, the replica exchange method was implemented. Physical energy functions based on CHARMM19 and CHARMM22 parameterizations with generalized Born (GB) solvent models were applied in scoring loop conformations extracted from the lattice simulations and, in the case of all-atom simulations, the ensemble of conformations were generated and scored with these models. Predictions are reported for 25 loop segments, each eight residues long and taken from a diverse set of 22 protein structures. We find that the simulations generally sampled conformations with low global root-mean-square-deviation (RMSD) for loop backbone coordinates from the known structures, whereas clustering conformations in RMSD space and scoring detected less favorable loop structures. Specifically, the lattice simulations sampled basins that exhibited an average global RMSD of 2.21 +/- 1.42 A, whereas clustering and scoring the loop conformations determined an RMSD of 3.72 +/- 1.91 A. Using CHARMM19/GB to refine the lattice conformations improved the sampling RMSD to 1.57 +/- 0.98 A and detection to 2.58 +/- 1.48 A. We found that further improvement could be gained from extending the upper temperature in the all-atom refinement from 400 to 800 K, where the results typically yield a reduction of approximately 1 A or greater in the RMSD of the detected loop. Overall, CHARMM19 with a simple pairwise GB solvent model is more efficient at sampling low-RMSD loop basins than CHARMM22 with a higher-resolution modified analytical GB model; however, the latter simulation method provides a more accurate description of the all-atom energy surface, yet demands a much greater computational cost. (c) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 17876760     DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20827

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Chem        ISSN: 0192-8651            Impact factor:   3.376


  13 in total

1.  The importance of slow motions for protein functional loops.

Authors:  Aris Skliros; Michael T Zimmermann; Debkanta Chakraborty; Saras Saraswathi; Ataur R Katebi; Sumudu P Leelananda; Andrzej Kloczkowski; Robert L Jernigan
Journal:  Phys Biol       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Analysis of loop boundaries using different local structure assignment methods.

Authors:  Manoj Tyagi; Aurélie Bornot; Bernard Offmann; Alexandre G de Brevern
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 6.725

3.  Modeling the possible conformations of the extracellular loops in G-protein-coupled receptors.

Authors:  Gregory V Nikiforovich; Christina M Taylor; Garland R Marshall; Thomas J Baranski
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2010-02-01

4.  Development of a new physics-based internal coordinate mechanics force field and its application to protein loop modeling.

Authors:  Yelena A Arnautova; Ruben A Abagyan; Maxim Totrov
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2011-02

5.  SuperLooper--a prediction server for the modeling of loops in globular and membrane proteins.

Authors:  Peter W Hildebrand; Andrean Goede; Raphael A Bauer; Bjoern Gruening; Jochen Ismer; Elke Michalsky; Robert Preissner
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2009-05-08       Impact factor: 16.971

6.  Improving predicted protein loop structure ranking using a Pareto-optimality consensus method.

Authors:  Yaohang Li; Ionel Rata; See-wing Chiu; Eric Jakobsson
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2010-07-20

Review 7.  Template-based protein modeling: recent methodological advances.

Authors:  Pankaj R Daga; Ronak Y Patel; Robert J Doerksen
Journal:  Curr Top Med Chem       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  A quality metric for homology modeling: the H-factor.

Authors:  Eric di Luccio; Patrice Koehl
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2011-02-04       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 9.  Computational design of structured loops for new protein functions.

Authors:  Kale Kundert; Tanja Kortemme
Journal:  Biol Chem       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 4.700

10.  The FEATURE framework for protein function annotation: modeling new functions, improving performance, and extending to novel applications.

Authors:  Inbal Halperin; Dariya S Glazer; Shirley Wu; Russ B Altman
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 3.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.