FRankenstein becomes a cyborg: The automatic recombination and realignment of fold recognition models in CASP6

In the course of CASP6, we generated models for all targets using a new version of the “FRankenstein's monster approach.” Previously (in CASP5) we were able to build many very accurate full‐atom models by selection and recombination of well‐folded fragments obtained from crude fold recognition (FR) results, followed by optimization of the sequence–structure fit and assessment of alternative alignments on the structural level. This procedure was however very arduous, as most of the steps required extensive visual and manual input from the human modeler. Now, we have automated the most tedious steps, such as superposition of alternative models, extraction of best‐scoring fragments, and construction of a hybrid “monster” structure, as well as generation of alternative alignments in the regions that remain poorly scored in the refined hybrid model. We have also included the ROSETTA method to construct those parts of the target for which no reasonable structures were generated by FR methods (such as long insertions and terminal extensions). The analysis of successes and failures of the current version of the FRankenstein approach in modeling of CASP6 targets reveals that the considerably streamlined and automated method performs almost as well as the initial, mostly manual version, which suggests that it may be a useful tool for accurate protein structure prediction even in the hands of nonexperts. Proteins 2005;Suppl 7:106–113. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Leszek Rychlewski,et al.  Fold-recognition detects an error in the Protein Data Bank , 2002, Bioinform..

[2]  G. Schulz,et al.  Structure of the catalytic fragment of poly(AD-ribose) polymerase from chicken. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  Jonathan Casper,et al.  Combining local‐structure, fold‐recognition, and new fold methods for protein structure prediction , 2003, Proteins.

[4]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Assessment of homology‐based predictions in CASP5 , 2003, Proteins.

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

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

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

[8]  Ceslovas Venclovas,et al.  Sequence‐structure mapping errors in the PDB: OB‐fold domains , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[10]  Janusz M. Bujnicki,et al.  GeneSilico protein structure prediction meta-server , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[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]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  Single‐body residue‐level knowledge‐based energy score combined with sequence‐profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition , 2004, Proteins.

[13]  Dominique Douguet,et al.  Easier threading through web-based comparisons and cross-validations , 2001, Bioinform..

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

[15]  Adrian A Canutescu,et al.  Access the most recent version at doi: 10.1110/ps.03154503 References , 2003 .

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

[17]  Zoran Obradovic,et al.  Predicting intrinsic disorder from amino acid sequence , 2003, Proteins.

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

[19]  Bernard F. Buxton,et al.  The DISOPRED server for the prediction of protein disorder , 2004, Bioinform..

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

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

[22]  Leszek Rychlewski,et al.  Errors in the D. radiodurans large ribosomal subunit structure detected by protein fold‐recognition and structure validation tools , 2002, FEBS letters.

[23]  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.

[24]  R Leplae,et al.  Analysis and assessment of comparative modeling predictions in CASP4 , 2001, Proteins.

[25]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  Structure prediction meta server , 2001, Bioinform..

[26]  Darren A. Natale,et al.  The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes , 2003, BMC Bioinformatics.

[27]  Lisa N Kinch,et al.  CASP5 assessment of fold recognition target predictions , 2003, Proteins.

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

[29]  Marcin Feder,et al.  A “FRankenstein's monster” approach to comparative modeling: Merging the finest fragments of Fold‐Recognition models and iterative model refinement aided by 3D structure evaluation , 2003, Proteins.