Computer-based design of novel protein structures.

Over the past 10 years there has been tremendous success in the area of computational protein design. Protein design software has been used to stabilize proteins, solubilize membrane proteins, design intermolecular interactions, and design new protein structures. A key motivation for these studies is that they test our understanding of protein energetics and structure. De novo design of novel structures is a particularly rigorous test because the protein backbone must be designed in addition to the amino acid side chains. A priori it is not guaranteed that the target backbone is even designable. To address this issue, researchers have developed a variety of methods for generating protein-like scaffolds and for optimizing the protein backbone in conjunction with the amino acid sequence. These protocols have been used to design proteins from scratch and to explore sequence space for naturally occurring protein folds.

[1]  Homme W Hellinga,et al.  An empirical model for electrostatic interactions in proteins incorporating multiple geometry‐dependent dielectric constants , 2003, Proteins.

[2]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  De novo backbone and sequence design of an idealized α/β-barrel protein: evidence of stable tertiary structure , 2003 .

[3]  W. DeGrado,et al.  Protein design, a minimalist approach. , 1989, Science.

[4]  M. Karplus,et al.  Effective energy functions for protein structure prediction. , 2000, Current opinion in structural biology.

[5]  L. Serrano,et al.  Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  D. Benjamin Gordon,et al.  Exact rotamer optimization for protein design , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[7]  S. Wodak,et al.  The design of idealized α/β‐barrels: Analysis of β‐sheet closure requirements , 1990 .

[8]  T. Baker,et al.  Specificity versus stability in computational protein design. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Raphael Guerois,et al.  Energy estimation in protein design. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[10]  D. Baker,et al.  An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  N. Grishin,et al.  Side‐chain modeling with an optimized scoring function , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[12]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  Designed protein G core variants fold to native‐like structures: Sequence selection by ORBIT tolerates variation in backbone specification , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[13]  D. Baker,et al.  Improved recognition of native‐like protein structures using a combination of sequence‐dependent and sequence‐independent features of proteins , 1999, Proteins.

[14]  Junichi Takagi,et al.  Computational design of an integrin I domain stabilized in the open high affinity conformation , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[15]  Julia M. Shifman,et al.  Exploring the origins of binding specificity through the computational redesign of calmodulin , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  De novo backbone and sequence design of an idealized alpha/beta-barrel protein: evidence of stable tertiary structure. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  Francis Crick,et al.  The Fourier transform of a coiled-coil , 1953 .

[18]  F. R. Salemme,et al.  Structural and functional diversity in 4-α-helical proteins , 1980, Nature.

[19]  L. Serrano,et al.  The design of linear peptides that fold as monomeric beta-sheet structures. , 1999, Current opinion in structural biology.

[20]  M. Levitt,et al.  De novo protein design. II. Plasticity in sequence space. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  P. S. Kim,et al.  High-resolution protein design with backbone freedom. , 1998, Science.

[22]  P. S. Kim,et al.  Side-chain repacking calculations for predicting structures and stabilities of heterodimeric coiled coils , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  D. Baker,et al.  Close agreement between the orientation dependence of hydrogen bonds observed in protein structures and quantum mechanical calculations. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  B. L. Sibanda,et al.  Beta-hairpin families in globular proteins. , 1985, Nature.

[25]  S J Wodak,et al.  Structural principles of parallel beta-barrels in proteins. , 1988, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  D C Richardson,et al.  The de novo design of protein structures. , 1989, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[27]  A. Lesk,et al.  Principles determining the structure of beta-sheet barrels in proteins. II. The observed structures. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  P S Kim,et al.  Repacking protein cores with backbone freedom: structure prediction for coiled coils. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  S J Wodak,et al.  Automatic protein design with all atom force-fields by exact and heuristic optimization. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[30]  V. Rybin,et al.  Computer-aided design of a PDZ domain to recognize new target sequences , 2002, Nature Structural Biology.

[31]  Tom Alber,et al.  Structural test of the parameterized-backbone method for protein design. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  P. Koehl,et al.  Application of a self-consistent mean field theory to predict protein side-chains conformation and estimate their conformational entropy. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  Kam Y. J. Zhang,et al.  Accurate computer-based design of a new backbone conformation in the second turn of protein L. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[34]  S. A. Marshall,et al.  Energy functions for protein design. , 1999, Current opinion in structural biology.

[35]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Computational design of protein-protein interactions. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[36]  David Baker,et al.  Protein Structure Prediction Using Rosetta , 2004, Numerical Computer Methods, Part D.

[37]  L. Serrano,et al.  The design of linear peptides that fold as monomeric β-sheet structures , 1999 .

[38]  W. Jin,et al.  De novo design of foldable proteins with smooth folding funnel: automated negative design and experimental verification. , 2003, Structure.

[39]  Nick V Grishin,et al.  Effective scoring function for protein sequence design , 2003, Proteins.

[40]  L. Looger,et al.  Computational design of receptor and sensor proteins with novel functions , 2003, Nature.

[41]  W. DeGrado,et al.  β-Peptides: From Structure to Function , 2001 .

[42]  Christopher M. Summa,et al.  Tertiary templates for the design of diiron proteins. , 1999, Current opinion in structural biology.

[43]  Andrew M Wollacott,et al.  Virtual interaction profiles of proteins. , 2001, Journal of Molecular Biology.

[44]  David Baker,et al.  Exploring folding free energy landscapes using computational protein design. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[45]  C. M. Summa,et al.  INAUGURAL ARTICLE by a Recently Elected Academy Member:Retrostructural analysis of metalloproteins: Application to the design of a minimal model for diiron proteins , 2000 .

[46]  S. Wodak,et al.  Automatic procedures for protein design. , 2001, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[47]  S J Wodak,et al.  The design of idealized alpha/beta-barrels: analysis of beta-sheet closure requirements. , 1990, Proteins.

[48]  D. Baker,et al.  Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Bayesian statistical analysis of protein side‐chain rotamer preferences , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[50]  Christopher A. Voigt,et al.  Trading accuracy for speed: A quantitative comparison of search algorithms in protein sequence design. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[51]  B. Matthews,et al.  The role of backbone flexibility in the accommodation of variants that repack the core of T4 lysozyme. , 1994, Science.

[52]  W. DeGrado,et al.  beta-Peptides: from structure to function. , 2001, Chemical reviews.

[53]  Christopher T. Saunders,et al.  Recapitulation of protein family divergence using flexible backbone protein design. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[54]  B. L. Sibanda,et al.  β-Hairpin families in globular proteins , 1985, Nature.

[55]  T M Handel,et al.  Review: protein design--where we were, where we are, where we're going. , 2001, Journal of structural biology.

[56]  P. Harbury,et al.  Automated design of specificity in molecular recognition , 2003, Nature Structural Biology.

[57]  P. Harbury,et al.  Tanford-Kirkwood electrostatics for protein modeling. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[58]  J G Saven,et al.  Statistical theory for protein combinatorial libraries. Packing interactions, backbone flexibility, and the sequence variability of a main-chain structure. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[59]  Po-Ssu Huang,et al.  Adaptation of a fast Fourier transform‐based docking algorithm for protein design , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[60]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[61]  Stephen L. Mayo,et al.  Design, structure and stability of a hyperthermophilic protein variant , 1998, Nature Structural Biology.

[62]  J R Desjarlais,et al.  Side-chain and backbone flexibility in protein core design. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[63]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  De novo protein design: fully automated sequence selection. , 1997, Science.

[64]  B. Stoddard,et al.  Design, activity, and structure of a highly specific artificial endonuclease. , 2002, Molecular cell.

[65]  C. M. Summa,et al.  Computational de novo design, and characterization of an A(2)B(2) diiron protein. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[66]  P. Bradley,et al.  Toward High-Resolution de Novo Structure Prediction for Small Proteins , 2005, Science.

[67]  N. Pokala,et al.  Energy functions for protein design: adjustment with protein-protein complex affinities, models for the unfolded state, and negative design of solubility and specificity. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[68]  J. Ponder,et al.  Tertiary templates for proteins. Use of packing criteria in the enumeration of allowed sequences for different structural classes. , 1987, Journal of molecular biology.

[69]  S L Mayo,et al.  Coupling backbone flexibility and amino acid sequence selection in protein design , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[70]  Vijay S Pande,et al.  Thoroughly sampling sequence space: Large‐scale protein design of structural ensembles , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[71]  Vijay S Pande,et al.  Increased detection of structural templates using alignments of designed sequences , 2003, Proteins.

[72]  Loren L Looger,et al.  Computational Design of a Biologically Active Enzyme , 2004, Science.

[73]  D. Baker,et al.  Design of a Novel Globular Protein Fold with Atomic-Level Accuracy , 2003, Science.

[74]  Sheldon Park,et al.  Advances in computational protein design. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[75]  Johan Desmet,et al.  The dead-end elimination theorem and its use in protein side-chain positioning , 1992, Nature.

[76]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  Probing the role of packing specificity in protein design. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[77]  L L Looger,et al.  Generalized dead-end elimination algorithms make large-scale protein side-chain structure prediction tractable: implications for protein design and structural genomics. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[78]  Navin Pokala,et al.  Energy functions for protein design I: Efficient and accurate continuum electrostatics and solvation , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[79]  S L Mayo,et al.  Pairwise calculation of protein solvent-accessible surface areas. , 1998, Folding & design.

[80]  Jeffery G. Saven,et al.  Computational design of water-soluble analogues of the potassium channel KcsA , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[81]  Salvador Ventura,et al.  Designing proteins from the inside out , 2004, Proteins.

[82]  J. Richardson,et al.  The penultimate rotamer library , 2000, Proteins.

[83]  J R Desjarlais,et al.  De novo design of the hydrophobic cores of proteins , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[84]  A. Lesk,et al.  Principles determining the structure of beta-sheet barrels in proteins. I. A theoretical analysis. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[85]  F. Richards,et al.  The crystal structure of a mutant protein with altered but improved hydrophobic core packing. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[86]  John R Desjarlais,et al.  A de novo redesign of the WW domain , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[87]  Vincenzo Pavone,et al.  Artificial diiron proteins: From structure to function , 2005, Biopolymers.

[88]  C Kooperberg,et al.  Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.