Literature DB >> 31292988

Protein structure prediction using sparse NOE and RDC restraints with Rosetta in CASP13.

Georg Kuenze1,2, Jens Meiler1,2.   

Abstract

Computational methods that produce accurate protein structure models from limited experimental data, for example, from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, hold great potential for biomedical research. The NMR-assisted modeling challenge in CASP13 provided a blind test to explore the capabilities and limitations of current modeling techniques in leveraging NMR data which had high sparsity, ambiguity, and error rate for protein structure prediction. We describe our approach to predict the structure of these proteins leveraging the Rosetta software suite. Protein structure models were predicted de novo using a two-stage protocol. First, low-resolution models were generated with the Rosetta de novo method guided by nonambiguous nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE) contacts and residual dipolar coupling (RDC) restraints. Second, iterative model hybridization and fragment insertion with the Rosetta comparative modeling method was used to refine and regularize models guided by all ambiguous and nonambiguous NOE contacts and RDCs. Nine out of 16 of the Rosetta de novo models had the correct fold (global distance test total score > 45) and in three cases high-resolution models were achieved (root-mean-square deviation < 3.5 å). We also show that a meta-approach applying iterative Rosetta + NMR refinement on server-predicted models which employed non-NMR-contacts and structural templates leads to substantial improvement in model quality. Integrating these data-assisted refinement strategies with innovative non-data-assisted approaches which became possible in CASP13 such as high precision contact prediction will in the near future enable structure determination for large proteins that are outside of the realm of conventional NMR.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CASP13; NMR spectroscopy; Rosetta; distance restraints; protein structure prediction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31292988      PMCID: PMC6851423          DOI: 10.1002/prot.25769

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


  45 in total

1.  Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices.

Authors:  D T Jones
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1999-09-17       Impact factor: 5.469

2.  De novo protein structure determination using sparse NMR data.

Authors:  P M Bowers; C E Strauss; D Baker
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.835

3.  Rapid protein fold determination using unassigned NMR data.

Authors:  Jens Meiler; David Baker
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-12-10       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Protein structure prediction and analysis using the Robetta server.

Authors:  David E Kim; Dylan Chivian; David Baker
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

5.  How significant is a protein structure similarity with TM-score = 0.5?

Authors:  Jinrui Xu; Yang Zhang
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-02-17       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  Combined automated NOE assignment and structure calculation with CYANA.

Authors:  Peter Güntert; Lena Buchner
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 2.835

7.  NMR structure determination for larger proteins using backbone-only data.

Authors:  Srivatsan Raman; Oliver F Lange; Paolo Rossi; Michael Tyka; Xu Wang; James Aramini; Gaohua Liu; Theresa A Ramelot; Alexander Eletsky; Thomas Szyperski; Michael A Kennedy; James Prestegard; Gaetano T Montelione; David Baker
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Generalized fragment picking in Rosetta: design, protocols and applications.

Authors:  Dominik Gront; Daniel W Kulp; Robert M Vernon; Charlie E M Strauss; David Baker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Resolution-adapted recombination of structural features significantly improves sampling in restraint-guided structure calculation.

Authors:  Oliver F Lange; David Baker
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2012-03

10.  MetaPSICOV: combining coevolution methods for accurate prediction of contacts and long range hydrogen bonding in proteins.

Authors:  David T Jones; Tanya Singh; Tomasz Kosciolek; Stuart Tetchner
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 6.937

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Hybrid methods for combined experimental and computational determination of protein structure.

Authors:  Justin T Seffernick; Steffen Lindert
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2020-12-28       Impact factor: 3.488

2.  Protein structure prediction assisted with sparse NMR data in CASP13.

Authors:  Davide Sala; Yuanpeng Janet Huang; Casey A Cole; David A Snyder; Gaohua Liu; Yojiro Ishida; G V T Swapna; Kelly P Brock; Chris Sander; Krzysztof Fidelis; Andriy Kryshtafovych; Masayori Inouye; Roberto Tejero; Homayoun Valafar; Antonio Rosato; Gaetano T Montelione
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2019-12

3.  AlphaFold Models of Small Proteins Rival the Accuracy of Solution NMR Structures.

Authors:  Roberto Tejero; Yuanpeng Janet Huang; Theresa A Ramelot; Gaetano T Montelione
Journal:  Front Mol Biosci       Date:  2022-06-13

4.  Simultaneous Assignment and Structure Determination of Proteins From Sparsely Labeled NMR Datasets.

Authors:  Arup Mondal; Alberto Perez
Journal:  Front Mol Biosci       Date:  2021-11-24

5.  Editorial: Computational approaches for interpreting experimental data and understanding protein structure, dynamics and function relationships.

Authors:  Kaifeng Hu; Woonghee Lee; Gaetano T Montelione; Nikolaos G Sgourakis; Beat Vögeli
Journal:  Front Mol Biosci       Date:  2022-10-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.