Distance‐dependent, pair potential for protein folding: Results from linear optimization

The results of an optimization of a folding potential are reported. The complete energy function is modeled as a sum of pairwise interactions with a flexible functional form. The relevant distance between two amino acids (2 − 9 Å) is divided into 13 intervals, and the energy of each interval is optimized independently. We show, in accord with a previous publication (Tobi et al., Proteins 2000;40:71–85) that it is impossible to find a pair potential with the above flexible form that recognizes all native folds. Nevertheless, a potential that rates correctly a subset of the decoy structures was constructed and optimized. The resulting potential is compared with a distance‐dependent statistical potential of Bahar and Jernigan. It is further tested against decoy structures that were created in the Levitt's group. On average, the new potential places native shapes lower in energy and provides higher Z scores than other potentials. Proteins 2000;41:40–46. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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

[2]  M. Levitt,et al.  A lattice model for protein structure prediction at low resolution. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  G. Crippen,et al.  Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  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.

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

[6]  C. Mészáros Fast Cholesky factorization for interior point methods of linear programming , 1996 .

[7]  K. Dill,et al.  Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: how accurate are they? , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  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.

[9]  Klimov,et al.  Criterion that determines the foldability of proteins. , 1996, Physical review letters.

[10]  J. Skolnick,et al.  MONSSTER: a method for folding globular proteins with a small number of distance restraints. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  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.

[12]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Inter-residue potentials in globular proteins and the dominance of highly specific hydrophilic interactions at close separation. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  P G Wolynes,et al.  Protein folding mechanisms and the multidimensional folding funnel , 1998, Proteins.

[14]  D. Thirumalai,et al.  Pair potentials for protein folding: Choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

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