Literature DB >> 30122295

Contact Potential for Structure Prediction of Proteins and Protein Complexes from Potts Model.

Ivan Anishchenko1, Petras J Kundrotas2, Ilya A Vakser3.   

Abstract

The energy function is the key component of protein modeling methodology. This work presents a semianalytical approach to the development of contact potentials for protein structure modeling. Residue-residue and atom-atom contact energies were derived by maximizing the probability of observing native sequences in a nonredundant set of protein structures. The optimization task was formulated as an inverse statistical mechanics problem applied to the Potts model. Its solution by pseudolikelihood maximization provides consistent estimates of coupling constants at atomic and residue levels. The best performance was achieved when interacting atoms were grouped according to their physicochemical properties. For individual protein structures, the performance of the contact potentials in distinguishing near-native structures from the decoys is similar to the top-performing scoring functions. The potentials also yielded significant improvement in the protein docking success rates. The potentials recapitulated experimentally determined protein stability changes upon point mutations and protein-protein binding affinities. The approach offers a different perspective on knowledge-based potentials and may serve as the basis for their further development.
Copyright © 2018 Biophysical Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30122295      PMCID: PMC6127504          DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2018.07.035

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


  80 in total

1.  Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures.

Authors:  B Kuhlman; D Baker
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-09-12       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations.

Authors:  Raphael Guerois; Jens Erik Nielsen; Luis Serrano
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2002-07-05       Impact factor: 5.469

3.  Developing optimal non-linear scoring function for protein design.

Authors:  Changyu Hu; Xiang Li; Jie Liang
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2004-06-24       Impact factor: 6.937

Review 4.  Development of novel statistical potentials for protein fold recognition.

Authors:  N-V Buchete; J E Straub; D Thirumalai
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.809

5.  Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques.

Authors:  E Katchalski-Katzir; I Shariv; M Eisenstein; A A Friesem; C Aflalo; I A Vakser
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1992-03-15       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population.

Authors:  Elad Schneidman; Michael J Berry; Ronen Segev; William Bialek
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2006-04-09       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Learning generative models for protein fold families.

Authors:  Sivaraman Balakrishnan; Hetunandan Kamisetty; Jaime G Carbonell; Su-In Lee; Christopher James Langmead
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2011-01-25

8.  A large-scale experiment to assess protein structure prediction methods.

Authors:  J Moult; J T Pedersen; R Judson; K Fidelis
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1995-11

Review 9.  Potts Hamiltonian models of protein co-variation, free energy landscapes, and evolutionary fitness.

Authors:  Ronald M Levy; Allan Haldane; William F Flynn
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 6.809

10.  Hydrophobicity of amino acid residues in globular proteins.

Authors:  G D Rose; A R Geselowitz; G J Lesser; R H Lee; M H Zehfus
Journal:  Science       Date:  1985-08-30       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  8 in total

1.  Application of docking methodologies to modeled proteins.

Authors:  Amar Singh; Taras Dauzhenka; Petras J Kundrotas; Michael J E Sternberg; Ilya A Vakser
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2020-03-20

Review 2.  Computational approaches to macromolecular interactions in the cell.

Authors:  Ilya A Vakser; Eric J Deeds
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 6.809

3.  Dockground scoring benchmarks for protein docking.

Authors:  Ian Kotthoff; Petras J Kundrotas; Ilya A Vakser
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2022-02-05

4.  rsRNASP: A residue-separation-based statistical potential for RNA 3D structure evaluation.

Authors:  Ya-Lan Tan; Xunxun Wang; Ya-Zhou Shi; Wenbing Zhang; Zhi-Jie Tan
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 4.033

5.  Limits and potential of combined folding and docking.

Authors:  Gabriele Pozzati; Wensi Zhu; Claudio Bassot; John Lamb; Petras Kundrotas; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  Scoring of protein-protein docking models utilizing predicted interface residues.

Authors:  Gabriele Pozzati; Petras Kundrotas; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2022-03-14

7.  On the Rapid Calculation of Binding Affinities for Antigen and Antibody Design and Affinity Maturation Simulations.

Authors:  Simone Conti; Edmond Y Lau; Victor Ovchinnikov
Journal:  Antibodies (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-03

8.  Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold2.

Authors:  Patrick Bryant; Gabriele Pozzati; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 14.919

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.