Protein model refinement using an optimized physics-based all-atom force field

One of the greatest challenges in protein structure prediction is the refinement of low-resolution predicted models to high-resolution structures that are close to the native state. Although contemporary structure prediction methods can assemble the correct topology for a large fraction of protein domains, such approximate models are often not of the resolution required for many important applications, including studies of reaction mechanisms and virtual ligand screening. Thus, the development of a method that could bring those structures closer to the native state is of great importance. We recently optimized the relative weights of the components of the Amber ff03 potential on a large set of decoy structures to create a funnel-shaped energy landscape with the native structure at the global minimum. Such an energy function might be able to drive proteins toward their native structure. In this work, for a test set of 47 proteins, with 100 decoy structures per protein that have a range of structural similarities to the native state, we demonstrate that our optimized potential can drive protein models closer to their native structure. Comparing the lowest-energy structure from each trajectory with the starting decoy, structural improvement is seen for 70% of the models on average. The ability to do such systematic structural refinements by using a physics-based all-atom potential represents a promising approach to high-resolution structure prediction.

[1]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Tertiary structure predictions on a comprehensive benchmark of medium to large size proteins. , 2004, Biophysical journal.

[2]  David E. Kim,et al.  Physically realistic homology models built with ROSETTA can be more accurate than their templates. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  Wang,et al.  Replica Monte Carlo simulation of spin glasses. , 1986, Physical review letters.

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

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

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

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

[8]  K. Misura,et al.  PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 59:15–29 (2005) Progress and Challenges in High-Resolution Refinement of Protein Structure Models , 2022 .

[9]  Yang Zhang,et al.  TASSER: An automated method for the prediction of protein tertiary structures in CASP6 , 2005, Proteins.

[10]  J Lundström,et al.  Pcons: A neural‐network–based consensus predictor that improves fold recognition , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[11]  U. Hansmann Parallel tempering algorithm for conformational studies of biological molecules , 1997, physics/9710041.

[12]  Janusz M Bujnicki,et al.  Generalized protein structure prediction based on combination of fold‐recognition with de novo folding and evaluation of models , 2005, Proteins.

[13]  Daniel Fischer,et al.  3D‐SHOTGUN: A novel, cooperative, fold‐recognition meta‐predictor , 2003, Proteins.

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

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

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

[17]  J. Skolnick,et al.  Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on a genomic scale. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  A. Roitberg,et al.  All-atom structure prediction and folding simulations of a stable protein. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

[20]  M. Betancourt,et al.  Efficient Monte Carlo trial moves for polypeptide simulations. , 2005, The Journal of chemical physics.

[21]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  Can a physics‐based, all‐atom potential find a protein's native structure among misfolded structures? I. Large scale AMBER benchmarking , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[22]  J. Skolnick,et al.  Local energy landscape flattening: Parallel hyperbolic Monte Carlo sampling of protein folding , 2002, Proteins.

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

[24]  Tibor Csendes,et al.  Nonlinear Parameter Estimation by Global Optimization - Efficiency and reliability , 1989, Acta Cybern..

[25]  Wei Zhang,et al.  A point‐charge force field for molecular mechanics simulations of proteins based on condensed‐phase quantum mechanical calculations , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[27]  Liliana Wroblewska,et al.  Development of a physics-based force field for the scoring and refinement of protein models. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[28]  Richard Bonneau,et al.  Ab initio protein structure prediction of CASP III targets using ROSETTA , 1999, Proteins.

[29]  J. Skolnick,et al.  TOUCHSTONE II: a new approach to ab initio protein structure prediction. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[30]  A Kolinski,et al.  Prediction of the folding pathways and structure of the GCN4 leucine zipper. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[31]  D. Baker,et al.  Contact order, transition state placement and the refolding rates of single domain proteins. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

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