Evolution and physics in comparative protein structure modeling.

From a physical perspective, the native structure of a protein is a consequence of physical forces acting on the protein and solvent atoms during the folding process. From a biological perspective, the native structure of proteins is a result of evolution over millions of years. Correspondingly, there are two types of protein structure prediction methods, de novo prediction and comparative modeling. We review comparative protein structure modeling and discuss the incorporation of physical considerations into the modeling process. A good starting point for achieving this aim is provided by comparative modeling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. Incorporation of physical considerations is illustrated by an inclusion of solvation effects into the modeling of loops.

[1]  D. Phillips,et al.  A possible three-dimensional structure of bovine alpha-lactalbumin based on that of hen's egg-white lysozyme. , 1969, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Model of protein folding: inclusion of short-, medium-, and long-range interactions. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  J. Greer.  Comparative model-building of the mammalian serine proteases. , 1981, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  K. Takano.  ON SOLUTION OF , 1983 .

[5]  T. A. Jones,et al.  Using known substructures in protein model building and crystallography. , 1986, The EMBO journal.

[6]  J. Moult,et al.  An algorithm for determining the conformation of polypeptide segments in proteins by systematic search , 1986, Proteins.

[7]  A. Lesk,et al.  The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. , 1986, The EMBO journal.

[8]  T. L. Blundell,et al.  Knowledge-based prediction of protein structures and the design of novel molecules , 1987, Nature.

[9]  M. Karplus,et al.  Multiple conformational states of proteins: a molecular dynamics analysis of myoglobin. , 1987, Science.

[10]  B. Honig,et al.  Calculation of the total electrostatic energy of a macromolecular system: Solvation energies, binding energies, and conformational analysis , 1988, Proteins.

[11]  M. Karplus,et al.  Conformational sampling using high‐temperature molecular dynamics , 1990, Biopolymers.

[12]  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.

[13]  Timothy F. Havel,et al.  A new method for building protein conformations from sequence alignments with homologues of known structure. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles , 1992, Nature.

[15]  M. Levitt.  Accurate modeling of protein conformation by automatic segment matching. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  J A McCammon,et al.  Anti‐insulin antibody structure and conformation. II. Molecular dynamics with explicit solvent , 1992, Biopolymers.

[17]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[19]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins. Application to side-chain prediction. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  K. Fidelis,et al.  Comparison of systematic search and database methods for constructing segments of protein structure. , 1994, Protein engineering.

[21]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Energy parameters in polypeptides. 10. Improved geometrical parameters and nonbonded interactions for use in the ECEPP/3 algorithm, with application to proline-containing peptides , 1994 .

[22]  B. Honig,et al.  Evaluation of the conformational free energies of loops in proteins , 1994, Proteins.

[23]  John P. Overington,et al.  Derivation of rules for comparative protein modeling from a database of protein structure alignments , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[24]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 5179−5197 , 1996 .

[25]  A. Finkelstein,et al.  Why do protein architectures have boltzmann‐like statistics? , 1995, Proteins.

[26]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules , 1995 .

[27]  C Sander,et al.  Mapping the Protein Universe , 1996, Science.

[28]  David J. Giesen,et al.  A Universal Organic Solvation Model. , 1996, The Journal of organic chemistry.

[29]  Andrew J. Martin,et al.  Structural families in loops of homologous proteins: automatic classification, modelling and application to antibodies. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[30]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[31]  Andrej Sali,et al.  Comparative protein structure modeling as an optimization problem , 1997 .

[32]  W. C. Still,et al.  The GB/SA Continuum Model for Solvation. A Fast Analytical Method for the Calculation of Approximate Born Radii , 1997 .

[33]  Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A new , 1997 .

[34]  T. Blundell,et al.  Predicting the conformational class of short and medium size loops connecting regular secondary structures: application to comparative modelling. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  M. Karplus,et al.  PDB-based protein loop prediction: parameters for selection and methods for optimization. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  A E Torda,et al.  Perspectives in protein-fold recognition. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

[37]  M. Karplus,et al.  Electrostatic contributions to molecular free energies in solution. , 1998, Advances in protein chemistry.

[38]  P. Kollman,et al.  Pathways to a protein folding intermediate observed in a 1-microsecond simulation in aqueous solution. , 1998, Science.

[39]  A. Sali,et al.  Large-scale protein structure modeling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. , 1998, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[41]  B. Dominy,et al.  Development of a generalized Born model parameterization for proteins and nucleic acids , 1999 .

[42]  S. Al-Karadaghi,et al.  Iron superoxide dismutase from the archaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus: analysis of structure and thermostability. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[43]  M. Karplus,et al.  Effective energy function for proteins in solution , 1999, Proteins.

[44]  R A Friesner,et al.  Prediction of loop geometries using a generalized born model of solvation effects , 1999, Proteins.

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

[46]  Michael Levitt,et al.  A brighter future for protein structure prediction , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[47]  A Kolinski,et al.  Correlation between knowledge‐based and detailed atomic potentials: Application to the unfolding of the GCN4 leucine zipper , 1999, Proteins.

[48]  D. Case,et al.  Generalized born models of macromolecular solvation effects. , 2000, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[49]  M Feig,et al.  Accurate reconstruction of all‐atom protein representations from side‐chain‐based low‐resolution models , 2000, Proteins.

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

[51]  S Vajda,et al.  Discrimination of near‐native protein structures from misfolded models by empirical free energy functions , 2000, Proteins.

[52]  A. Sali,et al.  Modeling of loops in protein structures , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[53]  A. Sali,et al.  Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. , 2000, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[54]  Chris Sander,et al.  Completeness in structural genomics , 2001, Nature Structural Biology.

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

[56]  Richard Bonneau,et al.  Ab initio protein structure prediction: progress and prospects. , 2001, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[57]  D. Case,et al.  Generalized Born Models of Macromolecular Solvation Effects , 2001 .

[58]  Marc A. Martí-Renom,et al.  EVA: continuous automatic evaluation of protein structure prediction servers , 2001, Bioinform..

[59]  D Fischer,et al.  LiveBench‐1: Continuous benchmarking of protein structure prediction servers , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[60]  Z. Xiang,et al.  Extending the accuracy limits of prediction for side-chain conformations. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[61]  R A Friesner,et al.  Large-scale ab initio quantum chemical calculations on biological systems. , 2001, Accounts of chemical research.

[62]  P. Kollman,et al.  Biomolecular simulations: recent developments in force fields, simulations of enzyme catalysis, protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-nucleic acid noncovalent interactions. , 2001, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[63]  P Rotkiewicz,et al.  Generalized comparative modeling (GENECOMP): A combination of sequence comparison, threading, and lattice modeling for protein structure prediction and refinement , 2001, Proteins.

[64]  Narayanan Eswar,et al.  MODBASE, a database of annotated comparative protein structure models , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[65]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Identifying native‐like protein structures using physics‐based potentials , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..

[66]  A. Sali,et al.  Statistical potentials for fold assessment , 2009 .