Literature DB >> 9102472

Factors affecting the ability of energy functions to discriminate correct from incorrect folds.

B H Park1, E S Huang, M Levitt.   

Abstract

Eighteen low and medium resolution empirical energy functions were tested for their ability to distinguish correct from incorrect folds from three test sets of decoy protein conformations. The energy functions included 13 pairwise potentials of mean force, covering a wide range of functional forms and methods of parameterization, four potentials that attempt to detect properly formed hydrophobic cores, and one environment-based potential. the first of the three test sets consists of large ensembles of plausible conformations for eight small proteins, all of which have correct native secondary structure and are reasonably compact. The second is the set of all subconformations in a database of known protein structures applied to the sequences in that database (ungapped threading). The third is a set of ensembles of 1000 conformations each for seven small proteins taken from molecular dynamics simulations at 298 K and 498 K. Our results show that there are functions effective for each challenge set; moreover, success in one test is no guarantee of success in another. We examine the factors that seem to be important for accurate discrimination of correct structures in each of the test sets, and note that extremely simple functions are often as effective as more complex functions.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9102472     DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0809

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Biol        ISSN: 0022-2836            Impact factor:   5.469


  40 in total

1.  Decoys 'R' Us: a database of incorrect conformations to improve protein structure prediction.

Authors:  R Samudrala; M Levitt
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 6.725

2.  Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a family of designed sequences.

Authors:  Patrice Koehl; Michael Levitt
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-01-08       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Statistical potentials for fold assessment.

Authors:  Francisco Melo; Roberto Sánchez; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 6.725

4.  A physical approach to protein structure prediction.

Authors:  Silvia Crivelli; Elizabeth Eskow; Brett Bader; Vincent Lamberti; Richard Byrd; Robert Schnabel; Teresa Head-Gordon
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.033

5.  Can correct protein models be identified?

Authors:  Björn Wallner; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.725

6.  Interatomic potentials and solvation parameters from protein engineering data for buried residues.

Authors:  Andrei L Lomize; Mikhail Y Reibarkh; Irina D Pogozheva
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.725

7.  Contact order and ab initio protein structure prediction.

Authors:  Richard Bonneau; Ingo Ruczinski; Jerry Tsai; David Baker
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.725

8.  Toward predicting protein topology: an approach to identifying beta hairpins.

Authors:  Xavier de la Cruz; E Gail Hutchinson; Adrian Shepherd; Janet M Thornton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-08-12       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Orientational potentials extracted from protein structures improve native fold recognition.

Authors:  Nicolae-Viorel Buchete; John E Straub; Devarajan Thirumalai
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.725

10.  3DRobot: automated generation of diverse and well-packed protein structure decoys.

Authors:  Haiyou Deng; Ya Jia; Yang Zhang
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 6.937

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.