Selecting near‐native conformations in homology modeling: The role of molecular mechanics and solvation terms

A free energy function, combining molecular mechanics energy with empirical solvation and entropic terms, is used for ranking near‐native conformations that occur in the conformational search steps of homology modeling, i.e., side‐chain search and loop closure calculations. Correlations between the free energy and RMS deviation from the X‐ray structure are established. It is shown that generally both molecular mechanics and solvation/entropic terms should be included in the potential. The identification of near‐native backbone conformations is accomplished primarily by the molecular mechanics term that becomes the dominant contribution to the free energy if the backbone is even slightly strained, as frequently occurs in loop closure calculations. Both terms become equally important if a sufficiently accurate backbone conformation is found. Finally, the selection of the best side‐chain positions for a fixed backbone is almost completely governed by the solvation term. The discriminatory power of the combined potential is demonstrated by evaluating the free energies of protein models submitted to the first meeting on Critical Assessment of techniques for protein Structure Prediction (CASP1), and comparing them to the free energies of the native conformations.

[1]  Charles DeLisi,et al.  Peptide docking using dynamic programming , 1996 .

[2]  Jiří Novotný,et al.  Structure of antibody hypervariable loops reproduced by a conformational search algorithm , 1988, Nature.

[3]  K. Sharp,et al.  Protein folding and association: Insights from the interfacial and thermodynamic properties of hydrocarbons , 1991, Proteins.

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

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

[6]  S Vajda,et al.  Effect of conformational flexibility and solvation on receptor-ligand binding free energies. , 1994, Biochemistry.

[7]  M. Levitt,et al.  Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  S Vajda,et al.  Empirical free energy as a target function in docking and design: application to HIV‐1 protease inhibitors , 1996, FEBS letters.

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

[10]  J. Pellequer,et al.  Does conformational free energy distinguish loop conformations in proteins? , 1997, Biophysical journal.

[11]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Empirical free energy calculations of ligand-protein crystallographic complexes. I. Knowledge-based ligand-protein interaction potentials applied to the prediction of human immunodeficiency virus 1 protease binding affinity. , 1995, Protein engineering.

[12]  S. Bryant,et al.  An empirical energy function for threading protein sequence through the folding motif , 1993, Proteins.

[13]  M J Sippl,et al.  Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. , 1995, Current opinion in structural biology.

[14]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Biased probability Monte Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  M. James,et al.  A critical assessment of comparative molecular modeling of tertiary structures of proteins * , 1995, Proteins.

[16]  S Vajda,et al.  Prediction of protein complexes using empirical free energy functions , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[17]  T. Blundell,et al.  Knowledge-based protein modeling. , 1994, Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology.

[18]  M. Levitt,et al.  Using a hydrophobic contact potential to evaluate native and near-native folds generated by molecular dynamics simulations. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  Manfred J. Sippl,et al.  Boltzmann's principle, knowledge-based mean fields and protein folding. An approach to the computational determination of protein structures , 1993, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[20]  P. Kollman,et al.  Protein structure prediction with a combined solvation free energy-molecular mechanics force field , 1993 .

[21]  S Vajda,et al.  Extracting hydrophobicity parameters from solute partition and protein mutation/unfolding experiments. , 1995, Protein engineering.

[22]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Atomic solvation parameters applied to molecular dynamics of proteins in solution , 1992, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[23]  G. Crippen,et al.  Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Structure-derived potentials and protein simulations. , 1996, Current opinion in structural biology.

[25]  R. Srinivasan,et al.  LINUS: A hierarchic procedure to predict the fold of a protein , 1995, Proteins.

[26]  R L Jernigan,et al.  A preference‐based free‐energy parameterization of enzyme‐inhibitor binding. Applications to HIV‐1‐protease inhibitor design , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[27]  M. Karplus,et al.  CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations , 1983 .

[28]  M J Sternberg,et al.  Empirical scale of side-chain conformational entropy in protein folding. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  C. DeLisi,et al.  Necessary conditions for avoiding incorrect polypeptide folds in conformational search by energy minimization , 1993, Biopolymers.

[30]  A. D. McLachlan,et al.  Solvation energy in protein folding and binding , 1986, Nature.

[31]  Robert E. Bruccoleri,et al.  Antibody modeling using the conformational search program CONGEN , 1992 .

[32]  S Vajda,et al.  Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

[33]  A. Shrake,et al.  Environment and exposure to solvent of protein atoms. Lysozyme and insulin. , 1973, Journal of molecular biology.

[34]  Fredy Sussman,et al.  Solvent accessibility as a predictive tool for the free energy of inhibitor binding to the HIV‐1 protease , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[35]  S Vajda,et al.  Empirical free energy calculation: Comparison to calorimetric data , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[36]  R. Bruccoleri,et al.  On the attribution of binding energy in antigen-antibody complexes McPC 603, D1.3, and HyHEL-5. , 1989, Biochemistry.

[37]  A. Godzik,et al.  Topology fingerprint approach to the inverse protein folding problem. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[38]  M J Sternberg,et al.  A continuum model for protein-protein interactions: application to the docking problem. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[39]  K Yue,et al.  Folding proteins with a simple energy function and extensive conformational searching , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[40]  S. Doniach,et al.  A computer model to dynamically simulate protein folding: Studies with crambin , 1989, Proteins.

[41]  R. Bruccoleri,et al.  Criteria that discriminate between native proteins and incorrectly folded models , 1988, Proteins.