A knowledge‐based move set for protein folding

The free energy landscape of protein folding is rugged, occasionally characterized by compact, intermediate states of low free energy. In computational folding, this landscape leads to trapped, compact states with incorrect secondary structure. We devised a residue‐specific, protein backbone move set for efficient sampling of protein‐like conformations in computational folding simulations. The move set is based on the selection of a small set of backbone dihedral angles, derived from clustering dihedral angles sampled from experimental structures. We show in both simulated annealing and replica exchange Monte Carlo (REMC) simulations that the knowledge‐based move set, when compared with a conventional move set, shows statistically significant improved ability at overcoming kinetic barriers, reaching deeper energy minima, and achieving correspondingly lower RMSDs to native structures. The new move set is also more efficient, being able to reach low energy states considerably faster. Use of this move set in determining the energy minimum state and for calculating thermodynamic quantities is discussed. Proteins 2007. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Alexei V. Finkelstein,et al.  3D Protein Folds: Homologs Against Errors-a Simple Estimate Based on the Random Energy Model , 1998 .

[2]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Algorithms for Clustering Data , 1988 .

[3]  Wolfhard Janke,et al.  Multicanonical study of coarse-grained off-lattice models for folding heteropolymers. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[4]  George Chikenji,et al.  MULTI-SELF-OVERLAP ENSEMBLE FOR PROTEIN FOLDING : GROUND STATE SEARCH AND THERMODYNAMICS , 1999, cond-mat/9903003.

[5]  J. Skolnick,et al.  Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on a genomic scale. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  Chaok Seok,et al.  A kinematic view of loop closure , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[8]  P. Bradley,et al.  Toward High-Resolution de Novo Structure Prediction for Small Proteins , 2005, Science.

[9]  G. N. Ramachandran,et al.  Conformation of polypeptides and proteins. , 1968, Advances in protein chemistry.

[10]  K. Dill,et al.  A fast conformational search strategy for finding low energy structures of model proteins , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[11]  T. Sosnick,et al.  The barriers in protein folding , 1994, Nature Structural Biology.

[12]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  The folding thermodynamics and kinetics of crambin using an all-atom Monte Carlo simulation. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  Faming Liang,et al.  Annealing contour Monte Carlo algorithm for structure optimization in an off-lattice protein model. , 2004, The Journal of chemical physics.

[14]  Eugene I Shakhnovich,et al.  Lessons from the design of a novel atomic potential for protein folding , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[15]  M. Karplus,et al.  Interpreting the folding kinetics of helical proteins , 1999, Nature.

[16]  A. Kolinski,et al.  Derivation of protein‐specific pair potentials based on weak sequence fragment similarity , 2000, Proteins.

[17]  Stephen Lin,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of protein folding using a lattice model , 1982 .

[18]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation , 1985 .

[19]  P. Grassberger,et al.  Growth algorithms for lattice heteropolymers at low temperatures , 2002, cond-mat/0208042.

[20]  Wang,et al.  Replica Monte Carlo simulation of spin glasses. , 1986, Physical review letters.