Importance of anchor group positioning in protein loop prediction
1999; Wiley; Volume: 37; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(19991001)37
ISSN1097-0134
AutoresUta Lessel, Dietmar Schomburg,
Tópico(s)Biofuel production and bioconversion
ResumoProteins: Structure, Function, and BioinformaticsVolume 37, Issue 1 p. 56-64 Research Article Importance of anchor group positioning in protein loop prediction Uta Lessel, Uta Lessel University of Cologne, Institute of Biochemistry, Köln, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorDietmar Schomburg, Corresponding Author Dietmar Schomburg [email protected] University of Cologne, Institute of Biochemistry, Köln, GermanyUniversity of Cologne, Institute of Biochemistry, Zülpicher Str. 47, D-50674, Köln Germany.===Search for more papers by this author Uta Lessel, Uta Lessel University of Cologne, Institute of Biochemistry, Köln, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorDietmar Schomburg, Corresponding Author Dietmar Schomburg [email protected] University of Cologne, Institute of Biochemistry, Köln, GermanyUniversity of Cologne, Institute of Biochemistry, Zülpicher Str. 47, D-50674, Köln Germany.===Search for more papers by this author First published: 22 September 1999 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19991001)37:1 3.0.CO;2-7Citations: 23Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract The aim of loop prediction in protein homology modeling is to connect the main chain ends of two successive regions, conserved in template and target structures by protein fragments that are as similar to the target as possible. For the development of a new loop prediction method, examples of insertions and deletions were searched automatically in data sets of structurally aligned protein pairs. Three different criteria were applied for the determination of the positions where the main chain conformations of the proteins begin to differ, i.e., the anchoring groups of the insertions and deletions, giving three test data sets. The target structures in these data sets were predicted by inserting fragments from different fragment data banks between the anchoring groups of the templates. The proposals of matching fragments were sorted with decreasing correspondence in the geometry of the anchoring groups. For assessment of the prediction quality, the template loops were substituted by the proposed ones, and their root mean square deviations to the target structures were determined. In addition, the best 20 fragments in the whole loop data bank used—those with the lowest deviations from the target structures after insertion into the templates—were determined and compared with the proposals. The analysis of the results shows limitations of knowledge-based loop prediction. It is demonstrated that the selection of the anchoring groups is the most important step in the whole procedure. Proteins 1999;37:56–64. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc. REFERENCES 1 Clayton RA, White O, Ketchum KA, Venter JV. The first genome from the third domain of life. Nature 1997; 387: 459–462. Medline 10.1038/387459a0 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2 Mosimann S, Meleshko R, James MNG. A critical assessment of comparative molecular modeling of tertiary structures of proteins. Proteins 1995; 23: 301–317. Medline 10.1002/prot.340230305 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3 Jones DT. Progress in protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997; 7: 377–387. Medline 10.1016/S0959-440X(97)80055-3 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4 Moult J, James MNG. An algorithm for determining the conformation of polypeptide segments in proteins by systematic search. Proteins 1986; 1: 146–163. Medline 10.1002/prot.340010207 CASPubMedGoogle Scholar 5 Bruccoleri RE, Karplus M. Prediction of the folding of short polypeptide segments by uniform conformational sampling. Biopolymers 1987; 26: 137–168. Medline 10.1002/bip.360260114 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 6 Jones TA, Thirup S. Using known substructures in protein model building and crystallography. EMBO J 1986; 5: 819–822. Medline 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1986.tb04287.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 7 Sibanda BL, Blundell TL, Thornton JM. Conformation of β-hairpins in protein structures. a systematic classification with applications to modeling by homology, electron density fitting and protein engineering. J Mol Biol 1989; 206: 759–777. Medline 10.1016/0022-2836(89)90583-4 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 8 Claessens M, Van Cutsem E, Lasters I, Wodak S. Modeling the polypeptide backbone with “spare parts”' from known protein structures. Protein Eng 1989; 2: 335–345. Medline 10.1093/protein/2.5.335 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 9 Unger R, Harel D, Wherland S, Sussman JL. A 3D building blocks approach to analyzing and predicting structure of proteins. Proteins 1989; 5: 355–373. Medline 10.1002/prot.340050410 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 10 Levitt M. Accurate modeling of protein conformation by automatic segment matching. J Mol Biol 1992; 226: 507–533. Medline 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90964-L CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 11 Rooman MJ, Rodriguez J, Wodak SJ. Automatic definition of recurrent local structure motifs in proteins. J Mol Biol 1990; 213: 327–336. Medline 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80194-9 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 12 Summers NL, Karplus M. Modeling of globular proteins: a distance-based data search procedure for the construction of insertion/deletion regions and Pro non-Pro mutations. J Mol Biol 1990; 216: 991–1016. Medline 10.1016/S0022-2836(99)80016-3 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 13 Fechteler T, Dengler U, Schomburg D. Prediction of protein three-dimensional structures in insertion and deletion regions: a procedure for searching data bases of representative protein fragments using geometric scoring criteria. J Mol Biol 1995; 253: 114–131. Medline 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0540 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 14 Sudarsanam S, DuBose RF, March CJ, Srinivasan S. Modeling protein loops using a ϕi+1, χi dimer database. Protein Sci 1995; 4: 1412–1420. Medline 10.1002/pro.5560040715 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 15 Fidelis K, Stern PS, Bacon D, Moult J. Comparison of systematic search and database methods for constructing segments of protein structure. Protein Eng 1994; 7: 953–960. Medline 10.1093/protein/7.8.953 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 16 van Vlijmen HWT, Karplus M. PDB-based protein loop prediction: parameters for selection and methods for optimization. J Mol Biol 1997; 267: 975–1001. Medline 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0857 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 17 Bernstein FC, Koetzle TF, Williams GJB, et al. The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol 1977; 112: 535–542. Medline 10.1016/S0022-2836(77)80200-3 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 18 Martin ACR, Cheetham JC, Rees AR. Modeling antibody hypervariable loops: a combined algorithm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1989; 86: 9268–9272. Medline 10.1073/pnas.86.23.9268 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 19 Zheng Q, Kyle DJ. Accuracy and reliability of the scaling-relaxation method for loop closure: an evaluation based on extensive and multiple copy conformational samplings. Proteins 1996; 24: 209–217. Medline 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(199602)24:2 3.0.CO;2-D CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 20 Donate LE, Rufino SD, Canard LHJ, Blundell TL. Conformational analysis and clustering of short and medium size loops connecting regular secondary structures: a database for modeling and prediction. Protein Sci 1996; 5: 2600–2616. Medline 10.1002/pro.5560051223 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 21 Kwasigroch JM, Chomilier J, A global taxonomy of loops in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1996; 259: 855–872. Medline 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0363 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 22 Oliva B, Bates PA, Querol E, Avilés FX, Sternberg MJE. An automated classification of the structure of protein loops. J Mol Biol 1997; 266: 814–830. Medline 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0819 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 23 Martin ACR, Thornton JM. Structural families in loops of homologous proteins: automatic classification, modeling and application to antibodies. J Mol Biol 1996; 263: 800–815. Medline 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0617 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 24 Lessel U, Schomburg D. Creation and characterization of a new, non-redundant fragment data bank. Protein Eng 1997; 10: 659–664. Medline 10.1093/protein/10.6.659 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 25 Rufino SD, Donate LE, Canard LHJ, Blundell TL. Predicting the conformational class of short and medium size loops connecting regular secondary structures: application to comparative modeling. J Mol Biol 1997; 267: 352–367. Medline 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0851 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 26 Smith TF, Waterman MS. Identification of common molecular subsequences. J Mol Biol 1981; 147: 195–197. Medline 10.1016/0022-2836(81)90087-5 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 27 Lessel U, Schomburg D. Similarities between protein 3D structures. Protein Eng 1994; 7: 1175–1187. Medline 10.1093/protein/7.10.1175 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 28 Diamond R. A note on the rotational superposition problem. Acta Crystallogr A 1988; 44: 211–216. 10.1107/S0108767387010535 Web of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume37, Issue11 October 1999Pages 56-64 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)