Assessment of semiempirical enthalpy of formation in solution as an effective energy function to discriminate native‐like structures in protein decoy sets

In this work, we tested the PM6, PM6‐DH+, PM6‐D3, and PM7 enthalpies of formation in aqueous solution as scoring functions across 33 decoy sets to discriminate native structures or good models in a decoy set. In each set these semiempirical quantum chemistry methods were compared according to enthalpic and geometric criteria. Enthalpically, we compared the methods according to how much lower was the enthalpy of each native, when compared with the mean enthalpy of its set. Geometrically, we compared the methods according to the fraction of native contacts (Q), which is a measure of geometric closeness between an arbitrary structure and the native. For each set and method, the Q of the best decoy was compared with the Q0, which is the Q of the decoy closest to the native in the set. It was shown that the PM7 method is able to assign larger energy differences between the native structure and the decoys in a set, arguably because of a better description of dispersion interactions, however PM6‐DH+ was slightly better than the rest at selecting geometrically good models in the absence of a native structure in the set. © 2016 The Authors. Journal of Computational Chemistry Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  G. Rose,et al.  A backbone-based theory of protein folding , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Stefan Grimme,et al.  Semiempirical GGA‐type density functional constructed with a long‐range dispersion correction , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

[3]  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.

[4]  Pavel Hobza,et al.  A Transferable H-Bonding Correction for Semiempirical Quantum-Chemical Methods. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

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

[6]  K. Dill,et al.  The Protein-Folding Problem, 50 Years On , 2012, Science.

[7]  Saraswathi Vishveshwara,et al.  Network properties of protein-decoy structures , 2012, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[8]  James J. P. Stewart,et al.  Application of localized molecular orbitals to the solution of semiempirical self‐consistent field equations , 1996 .

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

[10]  M Karplus,et al.  Configurational entropy of native proteins. , 1987, Biophysical journal.

[11]  I. H. Hillier,et al.  Semi-empirical molecular orbital methods including dispersion corrections for the accurate prediction of the full range of intermolecular interactions in biomolecules. , 2007, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

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

[13]  A. Klamt,et al.  COSMO : a new approach to dielectric screening in solvents with explicit expressions for the screening energy and its gradient , 1993 .

[14]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Identifying native‐like protein structures with scoring functions based on all‐atom ECEPP force fields, implicit solvent models and structure relaxation , 2009, Proteins.

[15]  R. Othman,et al.  Computational identification of self‐inhibitory peptides from envelope proteins , 2012, Proteins.

[16]  Gerhard Hummer,et al.  Native contacts determine protein folding mechanisms in atomistic simulations , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Lars Malmström,et al.  Structure prediction for CASP7 targets using extensive all‐atom refinement with Rosetta@home , 2007, Proteins.

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

[19]  Stefan Grimme,et al.  Comprehensive Benchmark of Association (Free) Energies of Realistic Host-Guest Complexes. , 2015, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[20]  Julio Daniel Carvalho Maia,et al.  GPU Linear Algebra Libraries and GPGPU Programming for Accelerating MOPAC Semiempirical Quantum Chemistry Calculations. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[21]  Pavel Hobza,et al.  A reliable docking/scoring scheme based on the semiempirical quantum mechanical PM6-DH2 method accurately covering dispersion and H-bonding: HIV-1 protease with 22 ligands. , 2010, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[22]  Samuel Genheden,et al.  A semiempirical approach to ligand‐binding affinities: Dependence on the Hamiltonian and corrections , 2012, J. Comput. Chem..

[23]  Y. Sugita,et al.  Free‐energy function for discriminating the native fold of a protein from misfolded decoys , 2011, Proteins.

[24]  Bairong Shen,et al.  SVR_CAF: An integrated score function for detecting native protein structures among decoys , 2014, Proteins.

[25]  J. Skolnick,et al.  Ab initio modeling of small proteins by iterative TASSER simulations , 2007, BMC Biology.

[26]  S. Grimme,et al.  A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 elements H-Pu. , 2010, The Journal of chemical physics.

[27]  C. Anfinsen Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. , 1973, Science.

[28]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[29]  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.

[30]  Method for the improved semiempirical description of intermolecular interactions of biomolecules and their fragments , 2012, Russian Chemical Bulletin.

[31]  Robert B Best,et al.  Comparing a simple theoretical model for protein folding with all-atom molecular dynamics simulations , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  Martin Korth,et al.  Enhanced semiempirical QM methods for biomolecular interactions , 2015, Computational and structural biotechnology journal.

[33]  James J. P. Stewart,et al.  Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods VI: more modifications to the NDDO approximations and re-optimization of parameters , 2012, Journal of Molecular Modeling.

[34]  G. Shields,et al.  Structural analysis of α-fetoprotein (AFP)-like peptides with anti-breast-cancer properties. , 2014, Journal of Physical Chemistry B.

[35]  Jindřich Fanfrlík,et al.  Semiempirical Quantum Chemical PM6 Method Augmented by Dispersion and H-Bonding Correction Terms Reliably Describes Various Types of Noncovalent Complexes. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[36]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Ab initio protein structure assembly using continuous structure fragments and optimized knowledge‐based force field , 2012, Proteins.

[37]  David J. Wild,et al.  Grand challenges for cheminformatics , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[38]  Nusret Duygu Yilmazer,et al.  Benchmark of electronic structure methods for protein–ligand interactions based on high-level reference data , 2015 .

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

[40]  Stefan Grimme,et al.  Accurate description of van der Waals complexes by density functional theory including empirical corrections , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[41]  Zsolt Bikádi,et al.  Application of the PM6 semi-empirical method to modeling proteins enhances docking accuracy of AutoDock , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[42]  James J. P. Stewart,et al.  Application of the PM6 method to modeling proteins , 2009, Journal of molecular modeling.

[43]  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.

[44]  Pavel Hobza,et al.  Advanced Corrections of Hydrogen Bonding and Dispersion for Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Methods. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[45]  Martin Korth,et al.  Comparison of molecular mechanics, semi-empirical quantum mechanical, and density functional theory methods for scoring protein-ligand interactions. , 2013, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[46]  J. Stewart,et al.  Sparkle/PM7 Lanthanide Parameters for the Modeling of Complexes and Materials. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[47]  Kenneth M Merz,et al.  Assessment of Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Methods for the Evaluation of Protein Structures. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[48]  K. Kinoshita,et al.  Absolute quality evaluation of protein model structures using statistical potentials with respect to the native and reference states , 2011, Proteins.