VoroMQA: Assessment of protein structure quality using interatomic contact areas

In the absence of experimentally determined protein structure many biological questions can be addressed using computational structural models. However, the utility of protein structural models depends on their quality. Therefore, the estimation of the quality of predicted structures is an important problem. One of the approaches to this problem is the use of knowledge‐based statistical potentials. Such methods typically rely on the statistics of distances and angles of residue‐residue or atom‐atom interactions collected from experimentally determined structures. Here, we present VoroMQA (Voronoi tessellation‐based Model Quality Assessment), a new method for the estimation of protein structure quality. Our method combines the idea of statistical potentials with the use of interatomic contact areas instead of distances. Contact areas, derived using Voronoi tessellation of protein structure, are used to describe and seamlessly integrate both explicit interactions between protein atoms and implicit interactions of protein atoms with solvent. VoroMQA produces scores at atomic, residue, and global levels, all in the fixed range from 0 to 1. The method was tested on the CASP data and compared to several other single‐model quality assessment methods. VoroMQA showed strong performance in the recognition of the native structure and in the structural model selection tests, thus demonstrating the efficacy of interatomic contact areas in estimating protein structure quality. The software implementation of VoroMQA is freely available as a standalone application and as a web server at http://bioinformatics.lt/software/voromqa. Proteins 2017; 85:1131–1145. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Alexandre G. de Brevern,et al.  VLDP web server: a powerful geometric tool for analysing protein structures in their environment , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  Adam Zemla,et al.  LGA: a method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality , 2004, Proteins.

[4]  F. Wilcoxon.  Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[5]  Nick V. Grishin,et al.  Estimation of Uncertainties in the Global Distance Test (GDT_TS) for CASP Models , 2016, PloS one.

[6]  Johannes Söding,et al.  Fast and accurate automatic structure prediction with HHpred , 2009, Proteins.

[7]  B. Rost,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction—Round VIII , 2009, Proteins.

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

[9]  A. Sali,et al.  Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[10]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Methods of model accuracy estimation can help selecting the best models from decoy sets: Assessment of model accuracy estimations in CASP11 , 2016, Proteins.

[11]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Assessment of the assessment: Evaluation of the model quality estimates in CASP10 , 2014, Proteins.

[12]  David Baker,et al.  Protein structure prediction and analysis using the Robetta server , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  A. Poupon.  Voronoi and Voronoi-related tessellations in studies of protein structure and interaction. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[14]  Guoli Wang,et al.  PISCES: a protein sequence culling server , 2003, Bioinform..

[15]  Björn Wallner,et al.  Improved model quality assessment using ProQ2 , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[16]  C Venclovas,et al.  Processing and analysis of CASP3 protein structure predictions , 1999, Proteins.

[17]  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.

[18]  Björn Wallner,et al.  ProQM-resample: improved model quality assessment for membrane proteins by limited conformational sampling , 2014, Bioinform..

[19]  Kliment Olechnovič,et al.  CAD‐score: A new contact area difference‐based function for evaluation of protein structural models , 2013, Proteins.

[20]  Kliment Olechnovic,et al.  Voroprot: an interactive tool for the analysis and visualization of complex geometric features of protein structure , 2011, Bioinform..

[21]  Jianpeng Ma,et al.  OPUS-PSP: an orientation-dependent statistical all-atom potential derived from side-chain packing. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  Jacek Blazewicz,et al.  SphereGrinder - reference structure-based tool for quality assessment of protein structural models , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM).

[23]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  Geometric filtering of pairwise atomic interactions applied to the design of efficient statistical potentials , 2006, Comput. Aided Geom. Des..

[24]  J. Skolnick,et al.  GOAP: a generalized orientation-dependent, all-atom statistical potential for protein structure prediction. , 2011, Biophysical journal.

[25]  Marco Biasini,et al.  lDDT: a local superposition-free score for comparing protein structures and models using distance difference tests , 2013, Bioinform..

[26]  Ernst-Walter Knapp,et al.  Optimized distance‐dependent atom‐pair‐based potential DOOP for protein structure prediction , 2015, Proteins.

[27]  Kristian Rother,et al.  Voronoia: analyzing packing in protein structures , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[28]  Jilong Li,et al.  A large-scale conformation sampling and evaluation server for protein tertiary structure prediction and its assessment in CASP11 , 2015, BMC Bioinformatics.

[29]  Adam Zemla,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)‐round V , 2005, Proteins.

[30]  Yang Zhang,et al.  I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[31]  Kliment Olechnovic,et al.  Voronota: A fast and reliable tool for computing the vertices of the Voronoi diagram of atomic balls , 2014, J. Comput. Chem..

[32]  Rahim Jafari,et al.  Investigating the importance of Delaunay-based definition of atomic interactions in scoring of protein-protein docking results. , 2016, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[33]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Ab initio protein structure assembly using continuous structure fragments and optimized knowledge‐based force field , 2012, Proteins.

[34]  Mehdi Sadeghi,et al.  Delaunay‐based nonlocal interactions are sufficient and accurate in protein fold recognition , 2014, Proteins.

[35]  A. Tramontano,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction: Progress and new directions in round XI , 2016, Proteins.

[36]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  proteins STRUCTURE O FUNCTION O BIOINFORMATICS Improved prediction of protein side-chain conformations with SCWRL4 , 2022 .

[37]  Zheng Wang,et al.  Benchmarking Deep Networks for Predicting Residue-Specific Quality of Individual Protein Models in CASP11 , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[38]  Yaoqi Zhou,et al.  Specific interactions for ab initio folding of protein terminal regions with secondary structures , 2008, Proteins.

[39]  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.

[40]  Yang Zhang,et al.  A Novel Side-Chain Orientation Dependent Potential Derived from Random-Walk Reference State for Protein Fold Selection and Structure Prediction , 2010, PloS one.

[41]  M. Sippl.  Recognition of errors in three‐dimensional structures of proteins , 1993, Proteins.

[42]  B. McConkey,et al.  Discrimination of native protein structures using atom–atom contact scoring , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  Juergen Haas,et al.  The Protein Model Portal—a comprehensive resource for protein structure and model information , 2013, Database J. Biol. Databases Curation.

[44]  A. Tramontano,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)—round IX , 2011, Proteins.

[45]  Karolis Uziela,et al.  ProQ2: estimation of model accuracy implemented in Rosetta , 2016, Bioinform..

[46]  Roland L Dunbrack,et al.  Assessment of template‐based modeling of protein structure in CASP11 , 2016, Proteins.

[47]  Renzhi Cao,et al.  Protein single-model quality assessment by feature-based probability density functions , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[48]  F. Richards.  The interpretation of protein structures: total volume, group volume distributions and packing density. , 1974, Journal of molecular biology.

[49]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP) — round x , 2014, Proteins.

[50]  Pascal Benkert,et al.  QMEAN: A comprehensive scoring function for model quality assessment , 2008, Proteins.