Literature DB >> 9232648

Statistical significance of hierarchical multi-body potentials based on Delaunay tessellation and their application in sequence-structure alignment.

P J Munson1, R K Singh.   

Abstract

Statistical potentials based on pairwise interactions between C alpha atoms are commonly used in protein threading/fold-recognition attempts. Inclusion of higher order interaction is a possible means of improving the specificity of these potentials. Delaunay tessellation of the C alpha-atom representation of protein structure has been suggested as a means of defining multi-body interactions. A large number of parameters are required to define all four-body interactions of 20 amino acid types (20(4) = 160,000). Assuming that residue order within a four-body contact is irrelevant reduces this to a manageable 8,855 parameters, using a nonredundant dataset of 608 protein structures. Three lines of evidence support the significance and utility of the four-body potential for sequence-structure matching. First, compared to the four-body model, all lower-order interaction models (three-body, two-body, one-body) are found statistically inadequate to explain the frequency distribution of residue contacts. Second, coherent patterns of interaction are seen in a graphic presentation of the four-body potential. Many patterns have plausible biophysical explanations and are consistent across sets of residues sharing certain properties (e.g., size, hydrophobicity, or charge). Third, the utility of the multi-body potential is tested on a test set of 12 same-length pairs of proteins of known structure for two protocols: Sequence-recognizes-structure, where a query sequence is threaded (without gap) through the native and a non-native structure; and structure-recognizes-sequence, where a query structure is threaded by its native and another non-native sequence. Using cross-validated training, protein sequences correctly recognized their native structure in all 24 cases. Conversely, structures recognized the native sequence in 23 of 24 cases. Further, the score differences between correct and decoy structures increased significantly using the three- or four-body potential compared to potentials of lower order.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9232648      PMCID: PMC2143734          DOI: 10.1002/pro.5560060711

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Protein Sci        ISSN: 0961-8368            Impact factor:   6.725


  11 in total

1.  The role of internal packing interactions in determining the structure and stability of a protein.

Authors:  W A Lim; R T Sauer
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1991-05-20       Impact factor: 5.469

2.  Evaluation of protein models by atomic solvation preference.

Authors:  L Holm; C Sander
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1992-05-05       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 3.  Knowledge-based potentials for proteins.

Authors:  M J Sippl
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 6.809

4.  Delaunay tessellation of proteins: four body nearest-neighbor propensities of amino acid residues.

Authors:  R K Singh; A Tropsha; I I Vaisman
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 1.479

5.  A new approach to protein fold recognition based on Delaunay tessellation of protein structure.

Authors:  W Zheng; S J Cho; I I Vaisman; A Tropsha
Journal:  Pac Symp Biocomput       Date:  1997

6.  LINUS: a hierarchic procedure to predict the fold of a protein.

Authors:  R Srinivasan; G D Rose
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1995-06

Review 7.  De novo and inverse folding predictions of protein structure and dynamics.

Authors:  A Godzik; A Kolinski; J Skolnick
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  An empirical energy function for threading protein sequence through the folding motif.

Authors:  S H Bryant; C E Lawrence
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1993-05

9.  Estimation of the maximum change in stability of globular proteins upon mutation of a hydrophobic residue to another of smaller size.

Authors:  B Lee
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 6.725

10.  Enlarged representative set of protein structures.

Authors:  U Hobohm; C Sander
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 6.725

View more
  19 in total

1.  On the evolution of primitive genetic codes.

Authors:  Günter Weberndorfer; Ivo L Hofacker; Peter F Stadler
Journal:  Orig Life Evol Biosph       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.950

2.  GOAP: a generalized orientation-dependent, all-atom statistical potential for protein structure prediction.

Authors:  Hongyi Zhou; Jeffrey Skolnick
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 4.033

3.  Distributions of experimental protein structures on coarse-grained free energy landscapes.

Authors:  Kannan Sankar; Jie Liu; Yuan Wang; Robert L Jernigan
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  Inferring ideal amino acid interaction forms from statistical protein contact potentials.

Authors:  Piotr Pokarowski; Andrzej Kloczkowski; Robert L Jernigan; Neha S Kothari; Maria Pokarowska; Andrzej Kolinski
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2005-04-01

5.  Revisiting the Voronoi description of protein-protein interfaces.

Authors:  Frédéric Cazals; Flavien Proust; Ranjit P Bahadur; Joël Janin
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 6.725

6.  Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: measurement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design.

Authors:  J Liang; H Edelsbrunner; C Woodward
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 6.725

7.  Knowledge-based entropies improve the identification of native protein structures.

Authors:  Kannan Sankar; Kejue Jia; Robert L Jernigan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Directional Force Originating from ATP Hydrolysis Drives the GroEL Conformational Change.

Authors:  Jie Liu; Kannan Sankar; Yuan Wang; Kejue Jia; Robert L Jernigan
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 4.033

9.  Discrimination of thermophilic and mesophilic proteins.

Authors:  Todd J Taylor; Iosif I Vaisman
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2010-05-17

10.  Residue contact-count potentials are as effective as residue-residue contact-type potentials for ranking protein decoys.

Authors:  Dan M Bolser; Ioannis Filippis; Henning Stehr; Jose Duarte; Michael Lappe
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2008-12-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.