Literature DB >> 35561203

Impact of protein conformational diversity on AlphaFold predictions.

Tadeo Saldaño1,2, Nahuel Escobedo1,2, Julia Marchetti1,2, Diego Javier Zea3, Juan Mac Donagh1,2, Ana Julia Velez Rueda1,2, Eduardo Gonik2,4, Agustina García Melani5, Julieta Novomisky Nechcoff1, Martín N Salas1, Tomás Peters6, Nicolás Demitroff2,6, Sebastian Fernandez Alberti1,2, Nicolas Palopoli1,2, Maria Silvina Fornasari1,2, Gustavo Parisi1,2.   

Abstract

MOTIVATION: After the outstanding breakthrough of AlphaFold in predicting protein 3D models, new questions appeared and remain unanswered. The ensemble nature of proteins, for example, challenges the structural prediction methods because the models should represent a set of conformers instead of single structures. The evolutionary and structural features captured by effective deep learning techniques may unveil the information to generate several diverse conformations from a single sequence. Here, we address the performance of AlphaFold2 predictions obtained through ColabFold under this ensemble paradigm.
RESULTS: Using a curated collection of apo-holo pairs of conformers, we found that AlphaFold2 predicts the holo form of a protein in ∼70% of the cases, being unable to reproduce the observed conformational diversity with the same error for both conformers. More importantly, we found that AlphaFold2's performance worsens with the increasing conformational diversity of the studied protein. This impairment is related to the heterogeneity in the degree of conformational diversity found between different members of the homologous family of the protein under study. Finally, we found that main-chain flexibility associated with apo-holo pairs of conformers negatively correlates with the predicted local model quality score plDDT, indicating that plDDT values in a single 3D model could be used to infer local conformational changes linked to ligand binding transitions.
AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Data and code used in this manuscript are publicly available at https://gitlab.com/sbgunq/publications/af2confdiv-oct2021. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35561203     DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1367-4803            Impact factor:   6.937


  5 in total

1.  Challenges in describing the conformation and dynamics of proteins with ambiguous behavior.

Authors:  Joel Roca-Martinez; Tamas Lazar; Jose Gavalda-Garcia; David Bickel; Rita Pancsa; Bhawna Dixit; Konstantina Tzavella; Pathmanaban Ramasamy; Maite Sanchez-Fornaris; Isel Grau; Wim F Vranken
Journal:  Front Mol Biosci       Date:  2022-08-03

Review 2.  AlphaFold, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Allostery.

Authors:  Ruth Nussinov; Mingzhen Zhang; Yonglan Liu; Hyunbum Jang
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 3.466

3.  The integration of AlphaFold-predicted and crystal structures of human trans-3-hydroxy-l-proline dehydratase reveals a regulatory catalytic mechanism.

Authors:  Eugenio Ferrario; Riccardo Miggiano; Menico Rizzi; Davide M Ferraris
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 6.155

4.  Local Normal Mode Analysis for Fast Loop Conformational Sampling.

Authors:  José Ramón López-Blanco; Yves Dehouck; Ugo Bastolla; Pablo Chacón
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 6.162

5.  Confrontation of AlphaFold models with experimental structures enlightens conformational dynamics supporting CYP102A1 functions.

Authors:  Philippe Urban; Denis Pompon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-25       Impact factor: 4.996

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.