Can correct protein models be identified?

The ability to separate correct models of protein structures from less correct models is of the greatest importance for protein structure prediction methods. Several studies have examined the ability of different types of energy function to detect the native, or native‐like, protein structure from a large set of decoys. In contrast to earlier studies, we examine here the ability to detect models that only show limited structural similarity to the native structure. These correct models are defined by the existence of a fragment that shows significant similarity between this model and the native structure. It has been shown that the existence of such fragments is useful for comparing the performance between different fold recognition methods and that this performance correlates well with performance in fold recognition. We have developed ProQ, a neural‐network‐based method to predict the quality of a protein model that extracts structural features, such as frequency of atom–atom contacts, and predicts the quality of a model, as measured either by LGscore or MaxSub. We show that ProQ performs at least as well as other measures when identifying the native structure and is better at the detection of correct models. This performance is maintained over several different test sets. ProQ can also be combined with the Pcons fold recognition predictor (Pmodeller) to increase its performance, with the main advantage being the elimination of a few high‐scoring incorrect models. Pmodeller was successful in CASP5 and results from the latest LiveBench, LiveBench‐6, indicating that Pmodeller has a higher specificity than Pcons alone.

[1]  B. Lee,et al.  The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. , 1971, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[3]  U. Singh,et al.  A NEW FORCE FIELD FOR MOLECULAR MECHANICAL SIMULATION OF NUCLEIC ACIDS AND PROTEINS , 1984 .

[4]  S H Bryant,et al.  Correctly folded proteins make twice as many hydrophobic contacts. , 1987, International journal of peptide and protein research.

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

[6]  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.

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

[8]  M. Sippl.  Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mena force , 1990 .

[9]  S. Knudsen,et al.  Prediction of human mRNA donor and acceptor sites from the DNA sequence. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. , 1991, Science.

[11]  M. Sippl,et al.  Detection of native‐like models for amino acid sequences of unknown three‐dimensional structure in a data base of known protein conformations , 1992, Proteins.

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

[13]  D. T. Jones,et al.  A new approach to protein fold recognition , 1992, Nature.

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

[15]  John Maddox.  The endless search for primality , 1992, Nature.

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

[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]  T. Yeates,et al.  Verification of protein structures: Patterns of nonbonded atomic interactions , 1993, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[20]  C. Sander,et al.  Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  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..

[22]  Heekuck Oh,et al.  Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition , 1993, Adv. Comput..

[23]  S. Wodak,et al.  Factors influencing the ability of knowledge-based potentials to identify native sequence-structure matches. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  A. Beyer,et al.  An improved pair potential to recognize native protein folds , 1994, Proteins.

[25]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  An evolutionary approach to folding small alpha-helical proteins that uses sequence information and an empirical guiding fitness function. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  M. Levitt,et al.  The complexity and accuracy of discrete state models of protein structure. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  A. Godzik,et al.  Are proteins ideal mixtures of amino acids? Analysis of energy parameter sets , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[28]  P. Argos,et al.  Knowledge‐based protein secondary structure assignment , 1995, Proteins.

[29]  M Levitt,et al.  Recognizing native folds by the arrangement of hydrophobic and polar residues. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[30]  M. Levitt,et al.  Potential energy function and parameters for simulations of the molecular dynamics of proteins and nucleic acids in solution , 1995 .

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

[32]  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.

[33]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Development and Testing of the OPLS All-Atom Force Field on Conformational Energetics and Properties of Organic Liquids , 1996 .

[34]  Thomas L. Madden,et al.  Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. , 1997, Nucleic acids research.

[35]  S. Brunak,et al.  SHORT COMMUNICATION Identification of prokaryotic and eukaryotic signal peptides and prediction of their cleavage sites , 1997 .

[36]  C Kooperberg,et al.  Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  E S Huang,et al.  Factors affecting the ability of energy functions to discriminate correct from incorrect folds. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[38]  A. Godzik,et al.  Derivation and testing of pair potentials for protein folding. When is the quasichemical approximation correct? , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[39]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  VERIFY3D: assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. , 1997, Methods in enzymology.

[40]  F. Melo,et al.  Novel knowledge-based mean force potential at atomic level. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  D Gilis,et al.  Predicting protein stability changes upon mutation using database-derived potentials: solvent accessibility determines the importance of local versus non-local interactions along the sequence. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[43]  R. Samudrala,et al.  An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[44]  Richard Hughey,et al.  Hidden Markov models for detecting remote protein homologies , 1998, Bioinform..

[45]  F. Melo,et al.  Assessing protein structures with a non-local atomic interaction energy. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[46]  Richard Bonneau,et al.  Ab initio protein structure prediction of CASP III targets using ROSETTA , 1999, Proteins.

[47]  A Rojnuckarin,et al.  Knowledge‐based interaction potentials for proteins , 1999, Proteins.

[48]  L. Mirny,et al.  Universally conserved positions in protein folds: reading evolutionary signals about stability, folding kinetics and function. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[50]  D T Jones,et al.  Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[51]  David C. Jones,et al.  GenTHREADER: an efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[52]  D Fischer,et al.  CAFASP‐1: Critical assessment of fully automated structure prediction methods , 1999, Proteins.

[53]  G. Heijne,et al.  ChloroP, a neural network‐based method for predicting chloroplast transit peptides and their cleavage sites , 1999, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[54]  D Fischer,et al.  Hybrid fold recognition: combining sequence derived properties with evolutionary information. , 1999, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[55]  J. M. Bradshaw,et al.  Mutational investigation of the specificity determining region of the Src SH2 domain. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[56]  N. Linial,et al.  On the design and analysis of protein folding potentials , 2000, Proteins.

[57]  S H Kim,et al.  Environment-dependent residue contact energies for proteins. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[59]  M Vendruscolo,et al.  Can a pairwise contact potential stabilize native protein folds against decoys obtained by threading? , 2000, Proteins.

[60]  B. Honig,et al.  Free energy determinants of tertiary structure and the evaluation of protein models , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[61]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Enhanced genome annotation using structural profiles in the program 3D-PSSM. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[62]  A. Godzik,et al.  Comparison of sequence profiles. Strategies for structural predictions using sequence information , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[63]  R Samudrala,et al.  Decoys ‘R’ Us: A database of incorrect conformations to improve protein structure prediction , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[64]  R. Elber,et al.  Distance‐dependent, pair potential for protein folding: Results from linear optimization , 2000, Proteins.

[65]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  MaxSub: an automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality , 2000, Bioinform..

[66]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  A study of quality measures for protein threading models , 2001, BMC Bioinformatics.

[67]  J R Banavar,et al.  Protein threading by learning , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[68]  T L Blundell,et al.  FUGUE: sequence-structure homology recognition using environment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[69]  J. Skolnick,et al.  A distance‐dependent atomic knowledge‐based potential for improved protein structure selection , 2001, Proteins.

[70]  D Gilis,et al.  Identification and ab initio simulations of early folding units in proteins , 2001, Proteins.

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

[72]  J. Hermans,et al.  Free energies of protein decoys provide insight into determinants of protein stability , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[73]  D Fischer,et al.  LiveBench‐2: Large‐scale automated evaluation of protein structure prediction servers , 2001, Proteins.

[74]  J Lundström,et al.  Pcons: A neural‐network–based consensus predictor that improves fold recognition , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[75]  A. Elcock.  Prediction of functionally important residues based solely on the computed energetics of protein structure. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[76]  M J Sippl,et al.  Assessment of the CASP4 fold recognition category , 2001, Proteins.

[77]  Gert Vriend,et al.  Increasing the precision of comparative models with YASARA NOVA—a self‐parameterizing force field , 2002, Proteins.

[78]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank: unifying the archive , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[80]  Anthony K. Felts,et al.  Distinguishing native conformations of proteins from decoys with an effective free energy estimator based on the OPLS all‐atom force field and the surface generalized born solvent model , 2002, Proteins.

[81]  Adam Godzik,et al.  In search for more accurate alignments in the twilight zone , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[82]  D. Haussler,et al.  Information‐theoretic dissection of pairwise contact potentials , 2002, Proteins.

[83]  Michael Levitt,et al.  Design of an optimal Chebyshev‐expanded discrimination function for globular proteins , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[85]  B. Rost,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)—Round 6 , 2005, Proteins.