| Literature DB >> 23737448 |
Lim Heo1, Hahnbeom Park, Chaok Seok.
Abstract
The quality of model structures generated by contemporary protein structure prediction methods strongly depends on the degree of similarity between the target and available template structures. Therefore, the importance of improving template-based model structures beyond the accuracy available from template information has been emphasized in the structure prediction community. The GalaxyRefine web server, freely available at http://galaxy.seoklab.org/refine, is based on a refinement method that has been successfully tested in CASP10. The method first rebuilds side chains and performs side-chain repacking and subsequent overall structure relaxation by molecular dynamics simulation. According to the CASP10 assessment, this method showed the best performance in improving the local structure quality. The method can improve both global and local structure quality on average, when used for refining the models generated by state-of-the-art protein structure prediction servers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23737448 PMCID: PMC3692086 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nucleic Acids Res ISSN: 0305-1048 Impact factor: 16.971
GalaxyRefine test results for model 1 (and the best model out of model 1–5 in parentheses)
| Test set | Number of targets | Mean improvement/Median improvement/Percentage of improved targets | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GDT-HA | GDC-SC | MolProbity score | |||
| CASP refinement category targets | CASP8 | 12 | 0.57/0.26/50 (1.45/0.63/67) | 3.43/3.02/83 (4.07/3.07/83) | 0.99/1.14/100 |
| CASP9 | 14 | 0.78/0.72/64 (2.19/1.22/93) | 0.62/-0.05/43 (1.09/0.87/57) | 0.62/0.44/71 (0.84/0.71/71) | |
| CASP10 | 27 | 0.08/0.63/59 (1.06/1.52/67) | 1.10/1.36/67 (1.96/2.67/67) | 0.70/0.80/79 (1.50/1.47/96) | |
| All | 53 | 0.38/0.63/59 (1.45/1.19/74) | 1.50/0.95/64 (2.21/2.36/68) | 0.74/0.86/82 (1.26/1.37/90) | |
| CASP10 server models | I-TASSER | 84 | 0.41/0.44/66 (1.40/1.13/76) | 2.52/2.22/87 (3.42/3.08/92) | 0.69/0.73/98 (1.01/1.06/99) |
| ROSETTA | 69 | 0.45/0.49/64 (1.33/0.93/75) | 0.67/0.59/64 (1.47/1.45/73) | −0.03/−0.14/26 (−0.01/−0.05/44) | |
| FG-MD benchmark set | 147 | 0.61/0.81/65 (1.80/1.69/80) | 1.74/1.24/75 (2.78/2.47/87) | 0.89/ 0.92/100 (1.18/1.16/100) | |
aInitial structure for the target TR476 has no side-chain coordinates; therefore, it is excluded in the MolProbity analysis.
bZhang-server models submitted for the CASP10 TS category targets,
cNon-oligomeric targets with TM-score (27) >0.5 and no severe crystallographic contacts.
dROSETTA-BAKER server models submitted for the CASP10 TS category targets.
Figure 1.Refinement results for a CASP10 target TR681. (A) The initial structure (pink, GDT-HA = 57.6) and (B) the refined structure (cyan, GDT-HA = 64.1) is shown superimposed to the experimental structure (brown). Multi-criterion kinemage of (C) the initial structure (MolProbity score = 2.90) and (D) the refined structure (MolProbity score = 2.06). MolProbity highlights steric clashes as pink spikes, poor rotamers as gold side-chains and Ramachandran outliers as green lines.
Figure 2.GalaxyRefine output page. The five top-ranking models are shown in static images, and they can also be viewed using the Jmol structure viewer. The structure changes relative to the initial model in terms of GDT-HA, RMSD and MolProbity score are presented in a separate table. Three components of the MolProbity score, namely, the number of atomic clashes per 1000 atoms, the percentages of rotamer outliers and Ramachandran favored backbone torsion angles, are also reported in the table.