Predicting transmembrane helix pair configurations with knowledge‐based distance‐dependent pair potentials

As a first step toward a novel de novo structure prediction approach for α‐helical membrane proteins, we developed coarse‐grained knowledge‐based potentials to score the mutual configuration of transmembrane (TM) helices. Using a comprehensive database of 71 known membrane protein structures, pairwise potentials depending solely on amino acid types and distances between Cα‐atoms were derived. To evaluate the potentials, they were used as an objective function for the rigid docking of 442 TM helix pairs. This is by far the largest test data set reported to date for that purpose. After clustering 500 docking runs for each pair and considering the largest cluster, we found solutions with a root mean squared (RMS) deviation <2 Å for about 30% of all helix pairs. Encouragingly, if only clusters that contain at least 20% of all decoys are considered, a success rate >71% (with a RMS deviation <2 Å) is obtained. The cluster size thus serves as a measure of significance to identify good docking solutions. In a leave‐one‐protein‐family‐out cross‐validation study, more than 2/3 of the helix pairs were still predicted with an RMS deviation <2.5 Å (if only clusters that contain at least 20% of all decoys are considered). This demonstrates the predictive power of the potentials in general, although it is advisable to further extend the knowledge base to derive more robust potentials in the future. When compared to the scoring function of Fleishman and Ben‐Tal, a comparable performance is found by our cross‐validated potentials. Finally, well‐predicted “anchor helix pairs” can be reliably identified for most of the proteins of the test data set. This is important for an extension of the approach towards TM helix bundles because these anchor pairs will act as “nucleation sites” to which more helices will be added subsequently, which alleviates the sampling problem. Proteins 2008. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  D. Juretic,et al.  Basic Charge Clusters and Predictions of Membrane Protein Topology. , 2010 .

[2]  B. Honig,et al.  On the accuracy of homology modeling and sequence alignment methods applied to membrane proteins. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[3]  D. Baker,et al.  Multipass membrane protein structure prediction using Rosetta , 2005, Proteins.

[4]  J. Bowie Solving the membrane protein folding problem , 2005, Nature.

[5]  O. Schueler‐Furman,et al.  Progress in Modeling of Protein Structures and Interactions , 2005, Science.

[6]  Francesca Fanelli,et al.  Computational modeling approaches to structure-function analysis of G protein-coupled receptors. , 2005, Chemical reviews.

[7]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Comparing protein–ligand docking programs is difficult , 2005, Proteins.

[8]  A. Watts Solid-state NMR in drug design and discovery for membrane-embedded targets , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[9]  John Moult,et al.  A decade of CASP: progress, bottlenecks and prognosis in protein structure prediction. , 2005, Current opinion in structural biology.

[10]  D. Doyle,et al.  Transmembrane helix prediction: a comparative evaluation and analysis. , 2005, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[11]  Jie Liang,et al.  Empirical lipid propensities of amino acid residues in multispan alpha helical membrane proteins , 2005, Proteins.

[12]  N. Grishin,et al.  Practical lessons from protein structure prediction , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[13]  Song Liu,et al.  A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  Markus Wiederstein,et al.  Protein sequence randomization: efficient estimation of protein stability using knowledge-based potentials. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  Yungki Park,et al.  Novel scoring function for modeling structures of oligomers of transmembrane α‐helices , 2004 .

[16]  D. Schneider Rendezvous in a membrane: close packing, hydrogen bonding, and the formation of transmembrane helix oligomers , 2004, FEBS letters.

[17]  Richard A Friesner,et al.  An Automatic Method for Predicting Transmembrane Protein Structures Using Cryo-em and Evolutionary Data , 2004 .

[18]  Malin M. Young,et al.  Optimal bundling of transmembrane helices using sparse distance constraints , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[19]  Maya Topf,et al.  PREDICT modeling and in‐silico screening for G‐protein coupled receptors , 2004, Proteins.

[20]  Thijs Beuming,et al.  A knowledge-based scale for the analysis and prediction of buried and exposed faces of transmembrane domain proteins , 2004, Bioinform..

[21]  Alessandro Senes,et al.  Folding of helical membrane proteins: the role of polar, GxxxG-like and proline motifs. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[22]  R. Hilgenfeld,et al.  Utility of homology models in the drug discovery process , 2004, Drug Discovery Today.

[23]  Yang Zhang,et al.  SPICKER: A clustering approach to identify near‐native protein folds , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[24]  G Vriend,et al.  Heavier‐than‐air flying machines are impossible , 2004, FEBS letters.

[25]  Duan Yang,et al.  The evolution of transmembrane helix kinks and the structural diversity of G protein-coupled receptors. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[27]  D. Engelman,et al.  Sequence motifs, polar interactions and conformational changes in helical membrane proteins. , 2003, Current opinion in structural biology.

[28]  James U Bowie,et al.  A simple method for modeling transmembrane helix oligomers. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  A. Kernytsky,et al.  Transmembrane helix predictions revisited , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[30]  F Seno,et al.  Optimal potentials for predicting inter‐helical packing in transmembrane proteins , 2002, Proteins.

[31]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  Distance‐scaled, finite ideal‐gas reference state improves structure‐derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[32]  Sarel J Fleishman,et al.  A novel scoring function for predicting the conformations of tightly packed pairs of transmembrane alpha-helices. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  D. Engelman,et al.  Specificity in transmembrane helix–helix interactions can define a hierarchy of stability for sequence variants , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  István Simon,et al.  The HMMTOP transmembrane topology prediction server , 2001, Bioinform..

[35]  Jie Liang,et al.  Helix-helix packing and interfacial pairwise interactions of residues in membrane proteins. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  Alessandro Senes,et al.  The Cα—H⋅⋅⋅O hydrogen bond: A determinant of stability and specificity in transmembrane helix interactions , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  David Thomas,et al.  A sequence and structural study of transmembrane helices , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[38]  Robert M. Graham,et al.  Non-α-helical elements modulate polytopic membrane protein architecture , 2001 .

[39]  A. Krogh,et al.  Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[40]  I. Arkin,et al.  Turning an opinion inside‐out: Rees and Eisenberg's commentary (Proteins 2000;38:121–122) on “Are membrane proteins ‘inside‐out’ proteins?” (Proteins 1999;36:135–143) , 2000, Proteins.

[41]  I. Vakser,et al.  Side chains in transmembrane helices are shorter at helix‐helix interfaces , 2000, Proteins.

[42]  D. Engelman,et al.  The GxxxG motif: a framework for transmembrane helix-helix association. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[43]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Statistical analysis of amino acid patterns in transmembrane helices: the GxxxG motif occurs frequently and in association with beta-branched residues at neighboring positions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[44]  M Vendruscolo,et al.  Can a pairwise contact potential stabilize native protein folds against decoys obtained by threading? , 2000, Proteins.

[45]  G. Klebe,et al.  Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[46]  T. Stevens,et al.  Are membrane proteins “inside‐out” proteins? , 1999, Proteins.

[47]  J U Bowie,et al.  Helix‐bundle membrane protein fold templates , 1999, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[48]  E. Domany,et al.  Pairwise contact potentials are unsuitable for protein folding , 1998 .

[49]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[50]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Assessing energy functions for flexible docking , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[51]  D. Baker,et al.  Clustering of low-energy conformations near the native structures of small proteins. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[52]  J U Bowie,et al.  Helix packing in membrane proteins. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[53]  Patrick Argos,et al.  Prediction of Membrane Protein Topology Utilizing Multiple Sequence Alignments , 1997, Journal of protein chemistry.

[54]  E S Huang,et al.  Factors affecting the ability of energy functions to discriminate correct from incorrect folds. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[55]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Inter-residue potentials in globular proteins and the dominance of highly specific hydrophilic interactions at close separation. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[56]  M. Levitt,et al.  Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[57]  M J Sippl,et al.  Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. , 1995, Current opinion in structural biology.

[58]  Manfred J. Sippl,et al.  Boltzmann's principle, knowledge-based mean fields and protein folding. An approach to the computational determination of protein structures , 1993, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[59]  M. Sippl Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[60]  D. Engelman,et al.  Membrane protein folding and oligomerization: the two-stage model. , 1990, Biochemistry.

[61]  W. Kabsch,et al.  Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen‐bonded and geometrical features , 1983, Biopolymers.

[62]  C. Chothia,et al.  Helix to helix packing in proteins. , 1981, Journal of molecular biology.

[63]  Wei Liu,et al.  Comparison of helix interactions in membrane and soluble alpha-bundle proteins. , 2002, Biophysical journal.

[64]  D. Engelman,et al.  Helical membrane protein folding, stability, and evolution. , 2000, Annual review of biochemistry.

[65]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[66]  Garland R. Marshall,et al.  A potential smoothing algorithm accurately predicts transmembrane helix packing , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[67]  S. White,et al.  Membrane protein folding and stability: physical principles. , 1999, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[68]  S. Wise,et al.  kPROT: A Knowledge-based Scale for the Propensity of Residue Orientation in Transmembrane Segments. Application to Membrane Protein Structure Prediction , 1999 .