Can a physics‐based, all‐atom potential find a protein's native structure among misfolded structures? I. Large scale AMBER benchmarking

Recent work has shown that physics‐based, all‐atom energy functions (AMBER, CHARMM, OPLS‐AA) and local minimization, when used in scoring, are able to discriminate among native and decoy structures. Yet, there have been only few instances reported of the successful use of physics based potentials in the actual refinement of protein models from a starting conformation to one that ends in structures, which are closer to the native state. An energy function that has a global minimum energy in the protein's native state and a good correlation between energy and native‐likeness should be able to drive model structures closer to their native structure during a conformational search. Here, the possible reasons for the discrepancy between the scoring and refinement results for the case of AMBER potential are examined. When the conformational search via molecular dynamics is driven by the AMBER potential for a large set of 150 nonhomologous proteins and their associated decoys, often the native minimum does not appear to be the lowest free energy state. Ways of correcting the potential function in order to make it more suitable for protein model refinement are proposed. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2007

[1]  Wei Zhang,et al.  A point‐charge force field for molecular mechanics simulations of proteins based on condensed‐phase quantum mechanical calculations , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[2]  Yong Duan,et al.  Distinguish protein decoys by Using a scoring function based on a new AMBER force field, short molecular dynamics simulations, and the generalized born solvent model , 2004, Proteins.

[3]  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..

[4]  Jan Hermans,et al.  Discrimination between native and intentionally misfolded conformations of proteins: ES/IS, a new method for calculating conformational free energy that uses both dynamics simulations with an explicit solvent and an implicit solvent continuum model , 1998, Proteins.

[5]  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.

[6]  A. Roitberg,et al.  All-atom structure prediction and folding simulations of a stable protein. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

[8]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules , 1995 .

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

[10]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Large-scale assessment of the utility of low-resolution protein structures for biochemical function assignment , 2004, Bioinform..

[11]  K. Sharp,et al.  Accurate Calculation of Hydration Free Energies Using Macroscopic Solvent Models , 1994 .

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

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

[14]  Ray Luo,et al.  Physical scoring function based on AMBER force field and Poisson–Boltzmann implicit solvent for protein structure prediction , 2004, Proteins.

[15]  J. Skolnick,et al.  Combining MONSSTER and LES/PME to Predict Protein Structure from Amino Acid Sequence: Application to the Small Protein CMTI-1 , 2000 .

[16]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  The Amber biomolecular simulation programs , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[17]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Generalized Born model with a simple, robust molecular volume correction. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[18]  R. Luo,et al.  Force field influences in β‐hairpin folding simulations , 2006 .

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

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

[21]  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.

[22]  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.

[23]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[24]  김삼묘,et al.  “Bioinformatics” 특집을 내면서 , 2000 .

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

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

[27]  Christopher M. Summa,et al.  An atomic environment potential for use in protein structure prediction. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Tertiary structure predictions on a comprehensive benchmark of medium to large size proteins. , 2004, Biophysical journal.

[29]  D. Baker,et al.  2.1 and 1.8 Å Average Cα RMSD Structure Predictions on Two Small Proteins, HP-36 and S15 , 2001 .

[30]  A Kolinski,et al.  Prediction of the folding pathways and structure of the GCN4 leucine zipper. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[31]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality , 2004, Proteins.

[32]  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.

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

[34]  Daniel Fischer,et al.  3D‐SHOTGUN: A novel, cooperative, fold‐recognition meta‐predictor , 2003, Proteins.

[35]  D. Case,et al.  Exploring protein native states and large‐scale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model , 2004, Proteins.

[36]  Janusz M Bujnicki,et al.  Generalized protein structure prediction based on combination of fold‐recognition with de novo folding and evaluation of models , 2005, Proteins.

[37]  J. Skolnick,et al.  TOUCHSTONE II: a new approach to ab initio protein structure prediction. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[38]  D. Case,et al.  Theory and applications of the generalized born solvation model in macromolecular simulations , 2000, Biopolymers.

[39]  H. L. Hartley,et al.  Manuscript Preparation , 2022 .