ESyPred3D: Prediction of proteins 3D structures

MOTIVATION Homology or comparative modeling is currently the most accurate method to predict the three-dimensional structure of proteins. It generally consists in four steps: (1) databanks searching to identify the structural homolog, (2) target-template alignment, (3) model building and optimization, and (4) model evaluation. The target-template alignment step is generally accepted as the most critical step in homology modeling. RESULTS We present here ESyPred3D, a new automated homology modeling program. The method gets benefit of the increased alignment performances of a new alignment strategy. Alignments are obtained by combining, weighting and screening the results of several multiple alignment programs. The final three-dimensional structure is build using the modeling package MODELLER. ESyPred3D was tested on 13 targets in the CASP4 experiment (Critical Assessment of Techniques for Proteins Structural Prediction). Our alignment strategy obtains better results compared to PSI-BLAST alignments and ESyPred3D alignments are among the most accurate compared to those of participants having used the same template. AVAILABILITY ESyPred3D is available through its web site at http://www.fundp.ac.be/urbm/bioinfo/esypred/ CONTACT christophe.lambert@fundp.ac.be; http://www.fundp.ac.be/~lambertc

[1]  M Kann,et al.  Optimization of a new score function for the detection of remote homologs , 2000, Proteins.

[2]  F. Melo,et al.  Novel knowledge-based mean force potential at atomic level. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  D S Moss,et al.  Main-chain bond lengths and bond angles in protein structures. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  Richard Hughey,et al.  Hidden Markov models for detecting remote protein homologies , 1998, Bioinform..

[5]  Ernest Feytmans,et al.  MATCH-BOX: a fundamentally new algorithm for the simultaneous alignment of several protein sequences , 1992, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[6]  C Sander,et al.  Predicting protein structure using hidden Markov models , 1997, Proteins.

[7]  Burkhard Rost,et al.  Sisyphus and prediction of protein structure , 1997, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[8]  P. Argos,et al.  Protein structure prediction: recognition of primary, secondary, and tertiary structural features from amino acid sequence. , 1995, Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology.

[9]  D. Phillips,et al.  A possible three-dimensional structure of bovine alpha-lactalbumin based on that of hen's egg-white lysozyme. , 1969, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  Jun S. Liu,et al.  Gibbs motif sampling: Detection of bacterial outer membrane protein repeats , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[11]  D Fischer,et al.  CAFASP‐1: Critical assessment of fully automated structure prediction methods , 1999, Proteins.

[12]  Olivier Poch,et al.  A comprehensive comparison of multiple sequence alignment programs , 1999, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  Christophe G. Lambert,et al.  Comparative analysis of seven multiple protein sequence alignment servers: clues to enhance reliability of predictions , 1998, Bioinform..

[14]  P. Briffeuil,et al.  Match-Box_server: a multiple sequence alignment tool placing emphasis on reliability , 1997, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[15]  Marc A. Martí-Renom,et al.  EVA: continuous automatic evaluation of protein structure prediction servers , 2001, Bioinform..

[16]  B Honig,et al.  Sequence to structure alignment in comparative modeling using PrISM , 1999, Proteins.

[17]  J. Thompson,et al.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[18]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles , 1992, Nature.

[19]  Burkhard Morgenstern,et al.  DIALIGN2: Improvement of the segment to segment approach to multiple sequence alignment , 1999, German Conference on Bioinformatics.

[20]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[22]  Andrew C. R. Martin,et al.  Assessment of comparative modeling in CASP2 , 1997, Proteins.

[23]  F. Corpet.  Multiple sequence alignment with hierarchical clustering. , 1988, Nucleic acids research.

[24]  A Tramontano,et al.  Homology modeling with low sequence identity. , 1998, Methods.

[25]  R Sánchez,et al.  Advances in comparative protein-structure modelling. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

[26]  C Venclovas,et al.  Some measures of comparative performance in the three CASPs , 1999, Proteins.

[27]  O. Gotoh.  Significant improvement in accuracy of multiple protein sequence alignments by iterative refinement as assessed by reference to structural alignments. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.