Smoothing protein energy landscapes by integrating folding models with structure prediction.

Decades of work has investigated the energy landscapes of simple protein models, but what do the landscapes of real, large, atomically detailed proteins look like? We explore an approach to this problem that systematically extracts simple funnel models of actual proteins using ensembles of structure predictions and physics-based atomic force fields and sampling. Central to our effort are calculations of a quantity called the relative entropy, which quantifies the extent to which a given set of structure decoys and a putative native structure can be projected onto a theoretical funnel description. We examine 86 structure prediction targets and one coupled folding-binding system, and find that in a majority of cases the relative entropy robustly signals which structures are nearest to native (i.e., which appear to lie closest to a funnel bottom). Importantly, the landscape model improves substantially upon purely energetic measures in scoring decoys. Our results suggest that physics-based models-including both folding theories and all-atom force fields-may be successfully integrated with structure prediction efforts. Conversely, detailed predictions of structures and the relative entropy approach enable one to extract coarse topographic features of protein landscapes that may enhance the development and application of simpler folding models.

[1]  M Scott Shell,et al.  Anomalous waterlike behavior in spherically-symmetric water models optimized with the relative entropy. , 2009, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[2]  Vincent A. Voelz,et al.  Blind test of physics-based prediction of protein structures. , 2009, Biophysical journal.

[3]  Jianhan Chen,et al.  Can molecular dynamics simulations provide high‐resolution refinement of protein structure? , 2007, Proteins.

[4]  M Scott Shell,et al.  Coarse-graining errors and numerical optimization using a relative entropy framework. , 2011, The Journal of chemical physics.

[5]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  The Amber biomolecular simulation programs , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[7]  Chun Wu,et al.  Folding processes of the B domain of protein A to the native state observed in all-atom ab initio folding simulations. , 2008, The Journal of chemical physics.

[8]  M. Karplus,et al.  Discrimination of the native from misfolded protein models with an energy function including implicit solvation. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  Klaus Schulten,et al.  Challenges in protein-folding simulations , 2010 .

[10]  Leili Javidpour,et al.  Computer Simulations of Protein Folding , 2012, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[11]  Kentaro Shimizu,et al.  Refinement of comparative models of protein structure by using multicanonical molecular dynamics simulations , 2008 .

[12]  S. Jang,et al.  Direct folding studies of various alpha and beta strands using replica exchange molecular dynamics simulation. , 2008, The Journal of chemical physics.

[13]  M Scott Shell,et al.  Convergence and Heterogeneity in Peptide Folding with Replica Exchange Molecular Dynamics. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[14]  A. Pohorille,et al.  The development/application of a ‘minimalist’ organic/biochemical molecular mechanic force field using a combination of ab initio calculations and experimental data , 1997 .

[15]  A. Garcia,et al.  Computing the stability diagram of the Trp-cage miniprotein , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  James E. Fitzgerald,et al.  Mimicking the folding pathway to improve homology-free protein structure prediction , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  A. Sali,et al.  Protein Structure Prediction and Structural Genomics , 2001, Science.

[18]  Valentina Tozzini,et al.  Coarse-grained models for proteins. , 2005, Current opinion in structural biology.

[19]  D. Baker,et al.  2.1 and 1.8 Å Average Cα RMSD Structure Predictions on Two Small Proteins, HP-36 and S15 , 2001 .

[20]  M R Lee,et al.  Free-energy calculations highlight differences in accuracy between X-ray and NMR structures and add value to protein structure prediction. , 2001, Structure.

[21]  B. Derrida Random-Energy Model: Limit of a Family of Disordered Models , 1980 .

[22]  Kyle A. Beauchamp,et al.  Molecular simulation of ab initio protein folding for a millisecond folder NTL9(1-39). , 2010, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[23]  Christopher M. Summa,et al.  Solvent dramatically affects protein structure refinement , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Jean-François Gibrat,et al.  Can molecular dynamics simulations help in discriminating correct from erroneous protein 3D models? , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[25]  D. Baker,et al.  Molecular dynamics in the endgame of protein structure prediction. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[26]  Michael Feig,et al.  A correlation‐based method for the enhancement of scoring functions on funnel‐shaped energy landscapes , 2006, Proteins.

[27]  Ken A Dill,et al.  A test on peptide stability of AMBER force fields with implicit solvation. , 2008, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[28]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Topological and energetic factors: what determines the structural details of the transition state ensemble and "en-route" intermediates for protein folding? An investigation for small globular proteins. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  Vijay S. Pande,et al.  Chapter 8:Computer Simulations of Protein Folding , 2008 .

[30]  Sergey Lyskov,et al.  The RosettaDock server for local protein–protein docking , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[31]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction—Round VII , 2007, Proteins.

[32]  Hongxing Lei,et al.  Ab initio folding of albumin binding domain from all-atom molecular dynamics simulation. , 2007, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[33]  N. Go,et al.  Studies on protein folding, unfolding, and fluctuations by computer simulation. II. A. Three‐dimensional lattice model of lysozyme , 1978 .

[34]  P. Wolynes,et al.  Spin glasses and the statistical mechanics of protein folding. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  Hao Fan,et al.  Refinement of homology‐based protein structures by molecular dynamics simulation techniques , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[36]  K. Dill,et al.  The protein folding problem. , 1993, Annual review of biophysics.

[37]  Andreas Heuer,et al.  Exploring the potential energy landscape of glass-forming systems: from inherent structures via metabasins to macroscopic transport , 2008, Journal of physics. Condensed matter : an Institute of Physics journal.

[38]  Eugene I. Shakhnovich,et al.  Ground state of random copolymers and the discrete random energy model , 1993 .

[39]  D. Case,et al.  Exploring protein native states and large‐scale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model , 2004, Proteins.

[40]  J. Hermans,et al.  Free energies of protein decoys provide insight into determinants of protein stability , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[41]  M Scott Shell,et al.  The relative entropy is fundamental to multiscale and inverse thermodynamic problems. , 2008, The Journal of chemical physics.

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

[43]  Michael Levitt,et al.  Near-native structure refinement using in vacuo energy minimization , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  Dominik Gront,et al.  BMC Structural Biology BioMed Central , 2007 .

[45]  M Scott Shell,et al.  Relative entropy as a universal metric for multiscale errors. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.