The VSGB 2.0 model: A next generation energy model for high resolution protein structure modeling

A novel energy model (VSGB 2.0) for high resolution protein structure modeling is described, which features an optimized implicit solvent model as well as physics‐based corrections for hydrogen bonding, π–π interactions, self‐contact interactions, and hydrophobic interactions. Parameters of the VSGB 2.0 model were fit to a crystallographic database of 2239 single side chain and 100 11–13 residue loop predictions. Combined with an advanced method of sampling and a robust algorithm for protonation state assignment, the VSGB 2.0 model was validated by predicting 115 super long loops up to 20 residues. Despite the dramatically increasing difficulty in reconstructing longer loops, a high accuracy was achieved: all of the lowest energy conformations have global backbone RMSDs better than 2.0 Å from the native conformations. Average global backbone RMSDs of the predictions are 0.51, 0.63, 0.70, 0.62, 0.80, 1.41, and 1.59 Å for 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 residue loop predictions, respectively. When these results are corrected for possible statistical bias as explained in the text, the average global backbone RMSDs are 0.61, 0.71, 0.86, 0.62, 1.06, 1.67, and 1.59 Å. Given the precision and robustness of the calculations, we believe that the VSGB 2.0 model is suitable to tackle “real” problems, such as biological function modeling and structure‐based drug discovery. Proteins 2011; © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Richard A Friesner,et al.  Progress in super long loop prediction , 2011, Proteins.

[2]  Margaret E. Johnson,et al.  Current status of the AMOEBA polarizable force field. , 2010, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[3]  Cassandra D M Churchill,et al.  Effects of the biological backbone on DNA-protein stacking interactions. , 2009, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[4]  Thomas E. Exner,et al.  Influence of Protonation, Tautomeric, and Stereoisomeric States on Protein-Ligand Docking Results , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  Jonathan M. Goodman,et al.  Hydrogen Bonding and π-Stacking: How Reliable are Force Fields? A Critical Evaluation of Force Field Descriptions of Nonbonded Interactions , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[6]  R. Levy,et al.  The AGBNP2 Implicit Solvation Model. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[7]  Kai Zhu,et al.  Toward better refinement of comparative models: Predicting loops in inexact environments , 2008, Proteins.

[8]  R. Sankararamakrishnan,et al.  Self-contacts in Asx and Glx residues of high-resolution protein structures: role of local environment and tertiary interactions. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[9]  Richard A Friesner,et al.  Prediction of Protein Loop Conformations using the AGBNP Implicit Solvent Model and Torsion Angle Sampling. , 2008, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[10]  N. Sugimoto,et al.  Recognition of a Flipped Base in a Hairpinloop DNA by a Small Peptide , 2008, Nucleosides, nucleotides & nucleic acids.

[11]  Kai Zhu,et al.  Improved Methods for Side Chain and Loop Predictions via the Protein Local Optimization Program:  Variable Dielectric Model for Implicitly Improving the Treatment of Polarization Effects. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[12]  Xin Li,et al.  Assignment of polar states for protein amino acid residues using an interaction cluster decomposition algorithm and its application to high resolution protein structure modeling , 2006, Proteins.

[13]  R. Friesner,et al.  Long loop prediction using the protein local optimization program , 2006, Proteins.

[14]  Lijun Wang,et al.  A histidine/tryptophan pi-stacking interaction stabilizes the heme-independent folding core of microsomal apocytochrome b5 relative to that of mitochondrial apocytochrome b5. , 2006, Biochemistry.

[15]  Adrian H Elcock,et al.  Structure selection for protein kinase docking and virtual screening: homology models or crystal structures? , 2006, Current protein & peptide science.

[16]  Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes,et al.  Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges , 2006, Proteins.

[17]  Nathan A. Baker,et al.  Assessing implicit models for nonpolar mean solvation forces: the importance of dispersion and volume terms. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  Jirí Cerný,et al.  Benchmark database of accurate (MP2 and CCSD(T) complete basis set limit) interaction energies of small model complexes, DNA base pairs, and amino acid pairs. , 2006, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[19]  M. Frank-Kamenetskii,et al.  Base-stacking and base-pairing contributions into thermal stability of the DNA double helix , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[20]  Miguel Machuqueiro,et al.  Constant-pH molecular dynamics with ionic strength effects: protonation-conformation coupling in decalysine. , 2006, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[21]  Richard A. Friesner,et al.  What role do surfaces play in GB models? A new‐generation of surface‐generalized born model based on a novel gaussian surface for biomolecules , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

[22]  Barry Honig,et al.  Comparative study of generalized Born models: protein dynamics. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  T. Klabunde,et al.  Structure-based drug discovery using GPCR homology modeling: successful virtual screening for antagonists of the alpha1A adrenergic receptor. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  C. David Sherrill,et al.  Highly Accurate Coupled Cluster Potential Energy Curves for the Benzene Dimer: Sandwich, T-Shaped, and Parallel-Displaced Configurations , 2004 .

[25]  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.

[26]  B. Honig,et al.  A hierarchical approach to all‐atom protein loop prediction , 2004, Proteins.

[27]  Ronald M. Levy,et al.  AGBNP: An analytic implicit solvent model suitable for molecular dynamics simulations and high‐resolution modeling , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[28]  I. Muegge,et al.  Virtual screening for kinase targets. , 2004, Current medicinal chemistry.

[29]  D. Case,et al.  Performance comparison of generalized born and Poisson methods in the calculation of electrostatic solvation energies for protein structures , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[30]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Generalized born model with a simple smoothing function , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[31]  R. Zhou.  Free energy landscape of protein folding in water: Explicit vs. implicit solvent , 2003, Proteins.

[32]  Richard D. Taylor,et al.  Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD , 2003, Proteins.

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

[34]  George A. Kaminski,et al.  Force Field Validation Using Protein Side Chain Prediction , 2002 .

[35]  Z. Xiang,et al.  On the role of the crystal environment in determining protein side-chain conformations. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  F. Gervasio,et al.  Stacking and T-shape competition in aromatic-aromatic amino acid interactions. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[37]  Ehud Gazit,et al.  A possible role for π‐stacking in the self‐assembly of amyloid fibrils , 2002, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

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

[39]  Richard A. Friesner,et al.  Solvent models for protein–ligand binding: Comparison of implicit solvent poisson and surface generalized born models with explicit solvent simulations , 2001, J. Comput. Chem..

[40]  R. Friesner,et al.  Generalized Born Model Based on a Surface Integral Formulation , 1998 .

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

[42]  F. Bontems,et al.  What function for human lithostathine?: structural investigations by three-dimensional structure modeling and high-resolution NMR spectroscopy. , 1996, Protein engineering.

[43]  B. Honig,et al.  Accurate First Principles Calculation of Molecular Charge Distributions and Solvation Energies from Ab Initio Quantum Mechanics and Continuum Dielectric Theory , 1994 .

[44]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Funnels, pathways, and the energy landscape of protein folding: A synthesis , 1994, Proteins.

[45]  B. Tidor,et al.  Do salt bridges stabilize proteins? A continuum electrostatic analysis , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[46]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Contribution of unusual Arginine-Arginine short-range interactions to stabilization and recognition in proteins , 1994, Journal of protein chemistry.

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

[48]  C. Sander,et al.  Database of homology‐derived protein structures and the structural meaning of sequence alignment , 1991, Proteins.

[49]  W. C. Still,et al.  Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics , 1990 .

[50]  G A Petsko,et al.  Aromatic-aromatic interaction: a mechanism of protein structure stabilization. , 1985, Science.

[51]  V. Hornak,et al.  Investigation of Salt Bridge Stability in a Generalized Born Solvent Model. , 2006, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[52]  G R Marshall,et al.  Ab initio modeling of small, medium, and large loops in proteins. , 2001, Biopolymers.

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

[54]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Theory of protein folding: the energy landscape perspective. , 1997, Annual review of physical chemistry.