Completion and refinement of 3‐D homology models with restricted molecular dynamics: Application to targets 47, 58, and 111 in the CASP modeling competition and posterior analysis

A method is presented to refine models built by homology by the use of restricted molecular dynamics (MD) techniques. The basic idea behind this method is the use of structure validation software to determine for each residue the likelihood that it is modeled correctly. This information is used to determine constraints and restraints in an MD simulation including explicit solvent molecules, which is used for model refinement. The procedure is based on the idea that residues that the validation software identifies as correctly positioned should be strongly constrained or restrained in the MD simulations, whereas residues that are likely to be positioned wrongly should move freely. Two different protocols are compared: one (applied to CASP3 target T58) using full structural constraints with separate optimization of each short fragment and the other (applied to T47) allowing some freedom using harmonic restraining potentials, with automatic optimization of the whole molecule. Structures along the MD trajectory that scored best in structural checks were selected for the construction of models that appeared to be successful in the CASP3 competition. Model refinement with MD in general leads to a model that is less like the experimental structure (Levitt et al. Nature Struct Biol 1999;6:108–111 ). Actually, refined T47 was slightly improved compared to the starting model; changes in model T58 led not to further enhancement. After the X‐ray structure of the modeled proteins became known, the procedure was evaluated for two targets (T47 and the CASP4 target T111) by comparing a long simulation in water with the experimental target structures. It was found that structural improvements could be obtained on a nanosecond time scale by allowing appropriate freedom in the simulation. Structural checks applied to fast fluctuations do not appear to be informative for the correctness of the structure. However, both a simple hydrogen bond count and a simple compactness measure, if averaged over times of typically 300 ps, correlate well with structural correctness and we suggest that criteria based on these properties may be used in computational folding strategies. Proteins 2002;48:593–604. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  H. Berendsen,et al.  Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath , 1984 .

[2]  M C Peitsch,et al.  ProMod and Swiss-Model: Internet-based tools for automated comparative protein modelling. , 1996, Biochemical Society transactions.

[3]  G Vriend,et al.  WHAT IF: a molecular modeling and drug design program. , 1990, Journal of molecular graphics.

[4]  Wilfred F. van Gunsteren,et al.  GROMOS Force Field , 2002 .

[5]  D. Case,et al.  Modification of the Generalized Born Model Suitable for Macromolecules , 2000 .

[6]  C. Brooks,et al.  Comparative Study of the Folding Free Energy Landscape of a Three-Stranded β-Sheet Protein with Explicit and Implicit Solvent Models , 2000 .

[7]  D. Baker,et al.  2.1 and 1.8 A average C(alpha) RMSD structure predictions on two small proteins, HP-36 and s15. , 2001, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[8]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Recognition of distantly related proteins through energy calculations , 1994, Proteins.

[9]  Herman J. C. Berendsen,et al.  A Molecular Dynamics Study of the Decane/Water Interface , 1993 .

[10]  Evelyn Camon,et al.  The EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[11]  C. Sander,et al.  Errors in protein structures , 1996, Nature.

[12]  R Sánchez,et al.  Evaluation of comparative protein structure modeling by MODELLER‐3 , 1997, Proteins.

[13]  W. Pearson.  Rapid and sensitive sequence comparison with FASTP and FASTA. , 1990, Methods in enzymology.

[14]  K Fidelis,et al.  A large‐scale experiment to assess protein structure prediction methods , 1995, Proteins.

[15]  R A Friesner,et al.  Prediction of loop geometries using a generalized born model of solvation effects , 1999, Proteins.

[16]  J. Ponder,et al.  Tertiary templates for proteins. Use of packing criteria in the enumeration of allowed sequences for different structural classes. , 1987, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  A. Lesk,et al.  The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. , 1986, The EMBO journal.

[18]  R Abagyan,et al.  Homology modeling by the ICM method , 1995, Proteins.

[19]  X. Daura,et al.  Parametrization of aliphatic CHn united atoms of GROMOS96 force field , 1998 .

[20]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins. Application to side-chain prediction. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  C. Sander,et al.  Quality control of protein models : directional atomic contact analysis , 1993 .

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

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

[24]  G T Montelione,et al.  Homology modeling using simulated annealing of restrained molecular dynamics and conformational search calculations with CONGEN: Application in predicting the three‐dimensional structure of murine homeodomain Msx‐1 , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[25]  C Sander,et al.  The use of position‐specific rotamers in model building by homology , 1995, Proteins.

[26]  S H Bryant,et al.  A retrospective analysis of CASP2 threading predictions , 1997, Proteins.

[27]  T. Alwyn Jones,et al.  CASP3 comparative modeling evaluation , 1999, Proteins.

[28]  C. Sander,et al.  Fast and simple monte carlo algorithm for side chain optimization in proteins: Application to model building by homology , 1992, Proteins.

[29]  Alan E. Mark,et al.  The GROMOS96 Manual and User Guide , 1996 .

[30]  Berk Hess,et al.  LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations , 1997, J. Comput. Chem..

[31]  J Moult,et al.  The current state of the art in protein structure prediction. , 1996, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[32]  C. Sander,et al.  Database of homology‐derived protein structures and the structural meaning of sequence alignment , 1991, Proteins.

[33]  T. Hubbard,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP): Round III , 1999, Proteins.

[34]  D. van der Spoel,et al.  GROMACS: A message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation , 1995 .

[35]  Berk Hess,et al.  Improving Efficiency of Large Time-Scale Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Hydrogen-Rich Systems , 1999 .

[36]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  Chris Sander,et al.  Objectively judging the quality of a protein structure from a Ramachandran plot , 1997, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[38]  B. Rost.  Twilight zone of protein sequence alignments. , 1999, Protein engineering.

[39]  H. Berendsen,et al.  Interaction Models for Water in Relation to Protein Hydration , 1981 .

[40]  Michael Levitt,et al.  A brighter future for protein structure prediction , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.