Contact area difference (CAD): a robust measure to evaluate accuracy of protein models.

A simple unified measure to evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional atomic protein models is proposed. This measure is a normalized sum of absolute differences of residue-residue contact surface areas calculated for a reference structure and a model. It employs more rigorous quantitative evaluation of a contact than previously used contact measures. We argue that the contact area difference (CAD) number is a robust single measure to evaluate protein structure predictions in a wide range of model accuracies, from ab initio and threading models to models by homology, since it reflects both backbone topology and side-chain packing, is smooth, continuous and threshold-free, is not sensitive to typical crystallographic errors and ambiguities, adequately penalizes domain and/or secondary structure rearrangements and protein plasticity, and has consistent linear and matrix representations for more detailed analysis. The CAD quality of crystallographic structures, NMR structures, models by homology, and unfolded and misfolded structures is evaluated. It is shown that the CAD number discriminates between models better than Cartesian root-mean-square deviation (cRMSD). Structural variability of the NMR structures was found to be three times larger than deformations of crystallographic structures in different packing environments.

[1]  G. Kleywegt Use of non-crystallographic symmetry in protein structure refinement. , 1996, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[2]  P Argos,et al.  Optimal protocol and trajectory visualization for conformational searches of peptides and proteins. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  Karplus,et al.  Protein folding bottlenecks: A lattice Monte Carlo simulation. , 1991, Physical review letters.

[4]  C. Sander,et al.  Correlated mutations and residue contacts in proteins , 1994, Proteins.

[5]  W. Braun,et al.  Representation of short and long-range handedness in protein structures by signed distance maps. , 1983, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  K Fidelis,et al.  A large‐scale experiment to assess protein structure prediction methods , 1995, Proteins.

[7]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Biased probability Monte Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  Christus,et al.  A General Method Applicable to the Search for Similarities in the Amino Acid Sequence of Two Proteins , 2022 .

[9]  D. Thirumalai,et al.  Kinetics of protein folding: Nucleation mechanism, time scales, and pathways , 1995 .

[10]  G J Williams,et al.  The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. , 1977, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  G J Williams,et al.  The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. , 1978, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[12]  Phillips Dc,et al.  The development of crystallographic enzymology. , 1970 .

[13]  C. Sander,et al.  Evaluation of protein models by atomic solvation preference. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  D. Phillips The development of crystallographic enzymology. , 1970, Biochemical Society symposium.

[15]  S. Wodak,et al.  Protein structure prediction by threading methods: Evaluation of current techniques , 1995, Proteins.

[16]  R. Lavery,et al.  A new approach to the rapid determination of protein side chain conformations. , 1991, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[17]  G J Barton,et al.  Structural features can be unconserved in proteins with similar folds. An analysis of side-chain to side-chain contacts secondary structure and accessibility. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[18]  I D Kuntz,et al.  An approach to the tertiary structure of globular proteins. , 1975, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[19]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  ICM—A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation , 1994, J. Comput. Chem..

[20]  A. Shrake,et al.  Environment and exposure to solvent of protein atoms. Lysozyme and insulin. , 1973, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  K Nishikawa,et al.  Comparison of homologous tertiary structures of proteins. , 1974, Journal of theoretical biology.

[22]  A Godzik,et al.  Conservation of residue interactions in a family of Ca-binding proteins. , 1989, Protein engineering.

[23]  M. Karplus,et al.  Kinetics of protein folding. A lattice model study of the requirements for folding to the native state. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  A. Kolinski,et al.  Simulations of the Folding of a Globular Protein , 1990, Science.

[25]  M. James,et al.  A critical assessment of comparative molecular modeling of tertiary structures of proteins * , 1995, Proteins.

[26]  Anders Liljas,et al.  Recognition of structural domains in globular proteins , 1974 .