Comparative evaluation of commercially available homology modelling tools: A structural bioinformatics perspective

Abstract Background Structure based drug design has revolutionised the way new drug molecules are being looked for. A very important technique in this process is homology modelling of protein structures. Although a number of protocols are proposed by a number of research groups, yet a comparative assessment is desired to identify the relative merits and demerits of these programs. Comparative assessment of various homology modelling tools was evaluated using prediction of structure of B-domain of factor V. Methods The methods employed, here, for comparative assessment were ESyPred3D, SWISS MODEL, PHYRE2 and YASARA. The criteria for selection of these tools were their popularity among users and level of automation. All these are completely automated and require only protein sequence or alignments as input. These tools were fast and the results were obtained within few hours. Results To evaluate the various models of the protein structures, we carried out exhaustive evaluation through “WHATif” and “QMEAN”. The parameters included the bond angle, bond length, coarse packing quality control, collision symmetry, omega angle, hand check dihedrals etc. Conclusion According to our study YASARA emerged as best performer.

[1]  K. Mann,et al.  Isolation of functional human coagulation factor V by using a hybridoma antibody. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  Manuel C. Peitsch,et al.  SWISS-MODEL: an automated protein homology-modeling server , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  Thomas L. Madden,et al.  Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. , 1997, Nucleic acids research.

[4]  T. Orfeo,et al.  Tissue factor in thrombosis and hemorrhage. , 2007, Surgery.

[5]  K. Mann,et al.  Isolation and characterization of single chain bovine factor V. , 1979, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[6]  E. Davie,et al.  An Overview of the Structure and Function of Thrombin , 2006, Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis.

[7]  J. Griffin,et al.  Blood coagulation factor Va abnormality associated with resistance to activated protein C in venous thrombophilia. , 1994, Blood.

[8]  B. Dahlbäck,et al.  Inherited resistance to activated protein C is corrected by anticoagulant cofactor activity found to be a property of factor V. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  C. Sander,et al.  The PDBFINDER database: a summary of PDB, DSSP and HSSP information with added value , 1996, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[10]  C. Sander,et al.  Errors in protein structures , 1996, Nature.

[11]  L. Holm,et al.  The Pfam protein families database , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[12]  N. Guex,et al.  SWISS‐MODEL and the Swiss‐Pdb Viewer: An environment for comparative protein modeling , 1997, Electrophoresis.

[13]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Protein structure prediction on the Web: a case study using the Phyre server , 2009, Nature Protocols.

[14]  N. Mackman.  The Role of Tissue Factor and Factor VIIa in Hemostasis , 2009, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[15]  B. Furie,et al.  Thrombus formation in vivo. , 2005, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[16]  Pieter H. Reitsma,et al.  Mutation in blood coagulation factor V associated with resistance to activated protein C , 1994, Nature.

[17]  L. Cripe,et al.  Structure of the gene for human coagulation factor V. , 1992, Biochemistry.

[18]  E. Chen,et al.  Characterization of the human factor VIII gene , 1984, Nature.

[19]  Keehyoung Joo,et al.  Improving physical realism, stereochemistry, and side‐chain accuracy in homology modeling: Four approaches that performed well in CASP8 , 2009, Proteins.

[20]  K. Mann,et al.  The complete cDNA sequence of bovine coagulation factor V. , 1992, The Journal of biological chemistry.