Structure refinement of protein model decoys requires accurate side‐chain placement

In this study, the application of temperature‐based replica‐exchange (T‐ReX) simulations for structure refinement of decoys taken from the I‐TASSER dataset was examined. A set of eight nonredundant proteins was investigated using self‐guided Langevin dynamics (SGLD) with a generalized Born implicit solvent model to sample conformational space. For two of the protein test cases, a comparison of the SGLD/T‐ReX method with that of a hybrid explicit/implicit solvent molecular dynamics T‐ReX simulation model is provided. Additionally, the effect of side‐chain placement among the starting decoy structures, using alternative rotamer conformations taken from the SCWRL4 modeling program, was investigated. The simulation results showed that, despite having near‐native backbone conformations among the starting decoys, the determinant of their refinement is side‐chain packing to a level that satisfies a minimum threshold of native contacts to allow efficient excursions toward the downhill refinement regime on the energy landscape. By repacking using SCWRL4 and by applying the RWplus statistical potential for structure identification, the SGLD/T‐ReX simulations achieved refinement to an average of 38% increase in the number of native contacts relative to the original I‐TASSER decoy sets and a 25% reduction in values of Cα root‐mean‐square deviation. The hybrid model succeeded in obtaining a sharper funnel to low‐energy states for a modeled target than the implicit solvent SGLD model; yet, structure identification remained roughly the same. Without meeting a threshold of near‐native packing of side chains, the T‐ReX simulations degrade the accuracy of the decoys, and subsequently, refinement becomes tantamount to the protein folding problem. Proteins 2013. 2012 Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Extending the treatment of backbone energetics in protein force fields: Limitations of gas‐phase quantum mechanics in reproducing protein conformational distributions in molecular dynamics simulations , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[2]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water , 1983 .

[3]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  Fast procedure for reconstruction of full‐atom protein models from reduced representations , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[4]  K. Dill,et al.  Assessment of the protein‐structure refinement category in CASP8 , 2009, Proteins.

[5]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  New analytic approximation to the standard molecular volume definition and its application to generalized Born calculations , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[6]  B. Honig,et al.  Refining homology models by combining replica‐exchange molecular dynamics and statistical potentials , 2008, Proteins.

[7]  Michael Feig,et al.  MMTSB Tool Set: enhanced sampling and multiscale modeling methods for applications in structural biology. , 2004, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[8]  Y. Sugita,et al.  Ab initio replica-exchange Monte Carlo method for cluster studies , 2001 .

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

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

[11]  Mark A Olson,et al.  Comparison of two adaptive temperature-based replica exchange methods applied to a sharp phase transition of protein unfolding-folding. , 2011, The Journal of chemical physics.

[12]  Yang Zhang,et al.  I‐TASSER: Fully automated protein structure prediction in CASP8 , 2009, Proteins.

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

[14]  Bernard R Brooks,et al.  Toward canonical ensemble distribution from self-guided Langevin dynamics simulation. , 2011, The Journal of chemical physics.

[15]  Christopher M. Summa,et al.  Solvent dramatically affects protein structure refinement , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Yang Zhang,et al.  I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction , 2010, Nature Protocols.

[17]  Jianpeng Ma,et al.  CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[18]  Michael S Lee,et al.  Assessment of Detection and Refinement Strategies for de novo Protein Structures Using Force Field and Statistical Potentials. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[19]  Stefano Piana,et al.  Refinement of protein structure homology models via long, all‐atom molecular dynamics simulations , 2012, Proteins.

[20]  Mark A Olson,et al.  Protein Folding Simulations Combining Self-Guided Langevin Dynamics and Temperature-Based Replica Exchange. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[21]  Yang Zhang,et al.  A Novel Side-Chain Orientation Dependent Potential Derived from Random-Walk Reference State for Protein Fold Selection and Structure Prediction , 2010, PloS one.

[22]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  Distance‐scaled, finite ideal‐gas reference state improves structure‐derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[23]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  proteins STRUCTURE O FUNCTION O BIOINFORMATICS Improved prediction of protein side-chain conformations with SCWRL4 , 2022 .

[24]  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 .

[25]  Matthew P Jacobson,et al.  Assessment of protein structure refinement in CASP9 , 2011, Proteins.

[26]  G. Ciccotti,et al.  Numerical Integration of the Cartesian Equations of Motion of a System with Constraints: Molecular Dynamics of n-Alkanes , 1977 .

[27]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Automated protein structure modeling in CASP9 by I‐TASSER pipeline combined with QUARK‐based ab initio folding and FG‐MD‐based structure refinement , 2011, Proteins.

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

[29]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[30]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Template‐based modeling and free modeling by I‐TASSER in CASP7 , 2007, Proteins.

[31]  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..

[32]  Mark A. Olson,et al.  Comparison between self‐guided Langevin dynamics and molecular dynamics simulations for structure refinement of protein loop conformations , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[33]  B. Brooks,et al.  Self-guided Langevin dynamics simulation method , 2003 .

[34]  Michael S. Lee,et al.  Efficient Conformational Sampling in Explicit Solvent Using a Hybrid Replica Exchange Molecular Dynamics Method. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.