Dataset Information

Residue contact-count potentials are as effective as residue-residue contact-type potentials for ranking protein decoys.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: For over 30 years potentials of mean force have been used to evaluate the relative energy of protein structures. The most commonly used potentials define the energy of residue-residue interactions and are derived from the empirical analysis of the known protein structures. However, single-body residue 'environment' potentials, although widely used in protein structure analysis, have not been rigorously compared to these classical two-body residue-residue interaction potentials. Here we do not try to combine the two different types of residue interaction potential, but rather to assess their independent contribution to scoring protein structures. RESULTS: A data set of nearly three thousand monomers was used to compare pairwise residue-residue 'contact-type' propensities to single-body residue 'contact-count' propensities. Using a large and standard set of protein decoys we performed an in-depth comparison of these two types of residue interaction propensities. The scores derived from the contact-type and contact-count propensities were assessed using two different performance metrics and were compared using 90 different definitions of residue-residue contact. Our findings show that both types of score perform equally well on the task of discriminating between near-native protein decoys. However, in a statistical sense, the contact-count based scores were found to carry more information than the contact-type based scores. CONCLUSION: Our analysis has shown that the performance of either type of score is very similar on a range of different decoys. This similarity suggests a common underlying biophysical principle for both types of residue interaction propensity. However, several features of the contact-count based propensity suggests that it should be used in preference to the contact-type based propensity. Specifically, it has been shown that contact-counts can be predicted from sequence information alone. In addition, the use of a single-body term allows for efficient alignment strategies using dynamic programming, which is useful for fold recognition, for example. These facts, combined with the relative simplicity of the contact-count propensity, suggests that contact-counts should be studied in more detail in the future.

SUBMITTER: Bolser DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2642821 | biostudies-other | 2008

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Residue contact-count potentials are as effective as residue-residue contact-type potentials for ranking protein decoys.

Bolser Dan M DM Filippis Ioannis I Stehr Henning H Duarte Jose J Lappe Michael M

BMC structural biology 20081208

<h4>Background</h4>For over 30 years potentials of mean force have been used to evaluate the relative energy of protein structures. The most commonly used potentials define the energy of residue-residue interactions and are derived from the empirical analysis of the known protein structures. However, single-body residue 'environment' potentials, although widely used in protein structure analysis, have not been rigorously compared to these classical two-body residue-residue interaction potentials ...[more]

PMID: 19063740

Similar Datasets

Project description:Effective encoding of residue contact information is crucial for protein structure prediction since it has a unique role to capture long-range residue interactions compared to other commonly used scoring terms. The residue contact information can be incorporated in structure prediction in several different ways: It can be incorporated as statistical potentials or it can be also used as constraints in ab initio structure prediction. To seek the most effective definition of residue contacts for template-based protein structure prediction, we evaluated 45 different contact definitions, varying bases of contacts and distance cutoffs, in terms of their ability to identify proteins of the same fold.We found that overall the residue contact pattern can distinguish protein folds best when contacts are defined for residue pairs whose C? atoms are at 7.0 Å or closer to each other. Lower fold recognition accuracy was observed when inaccurate threading alignments were used to identify common residue contacts between protein pairs. In the case of threading, alignment accuracy strongly influences the fraction of common contacts identified among proteins of the same fold, which eventually affects the fold recognition accuracy. The largest deterioration of the fold recognition was observed for ?-class proteins when the threading methods were used because the average alignment accuracy was worst for this fold class. When results of fold recognition were examined for individual proteins, we found that the effective contact definition depends on the fold of the proteins. A larger distance cutoff is often advantageous for capturing spatial arrangement of the secondary structures which are not physically in contact. For capturing contacts between neighboring ? strands, considering the distance between C? atoms is better than the C?-based distance because the side-chain of interacting residues on ? strands sometimes point to opposite directions.Residue contacts defined by C?-C? distance of 7.0 Å work best overall among tested to identify proteins of the same fold. We also found that effective contact definitions differ from fold to fold, suggesting that using different residue contact definition specific for each template will lead to improvement of the performance of threading.

Project description:Protein contact prediction helps reconstruct the tertiary structure that greatly determines a protein's function; therefore, contact prediction from the sequence is an important problem. Recently there has been exciting progress on this problem, but many of the existing methods are still low quality of prediction accuracy. In this paper, we present a new mixed integer linear programming (MILP)-based consensus method: a Consensus scheme based On a Mixed integer linear opTimization method for prOtein contact Prediction (COMTOP). The MILP-based consensus method combines the strengths of seven selected protein contact prediction methods, including CCMpred, EVfold, DeepCov, NNcon, PconsC4, plmDCA, and PSICOV, by optimizing the number of correctly predicted contacts and achieving a better prediction accuracy. The proposed hybrid protein residue-residue contact prediction scheme was tested in four independent test sets. For 239 highly non-redundant proteins, the method showed a prediction accuracy of 59.68%, 70.79%, 78.86%, 89.04%, 94.51%, and 97.35% for top-5L, top-3L, top-2L, top-L, top-L/2, and top-L/5 contacts, respectively. When tested on the CASP13 and CASP14 test sets, the proposed method obtained accuracies of 75.91% and 77.49% for top-L/5 predictions, respectively. COMTOP was further tested on 57 non-redundant ɑ-helical transmembrane proteins and achieved prediction accuracies of 64.34% and 73.91% for top-L/2 and top-L/5 predictions, respectively. For all test datasets, the improvement of COMTOP in accuracy over the seven individual methods increased with the increasing number of predicted contacts. For example, COMTOP performed much better for large number of contact predictions (such as top-5L and top-3L) than for small number of contact predictions such as top-L/2 and top-L/5. The results and analysis demonstrate that COMTOP can significantly improve the performance of the individual methods; therefore, COMTOP is more robust against different types of test sets. COMTOP also showed better/comparable predictions when compared with the state-of-the-art predictors.

Project description:Proteins are flexible, and this flexibility has an essential functional role. Flexibility can be observed in loop regions, rearrangements between secondary structure elements, and conformational changes between entire domains. However, most protein structure alignment methods treat protein structures as rigid bodies. Thus, these methods fail to identify the equivalences of residue pairs in regions with flexibility. In this study, we considered that the evolutionary relationship between proteins corresponds directly to the residue-residue physical contacts rather than the three-dimensional (3D) coordinates of proteins. Thus, we developed a new protein structure alignment method, contact area-based alignment (CAB-align), which uses the residue-residue contact area to identify regions of similarity. The main purpose of CAB-align is to identify homologous relationships at the residue level between related protein structures. The CAB-align procedure comprises two main steps: First, a rigid-body alignment method based on local and global 3D structure superposition is employed to generate a sufficient number of initial alignments. Then, iterative dynamic programming is executed to find the optimal alignment. We evaluated the performance and advantages of CAB-align based on four main points: (1) agreement with the gold standard alignment, (2) alignment quality based on an evolutionary relationship without 3D coordinate superposition, (3) consistency of the multiple alignments, and (4) classification agreement with the gold standard classification. Comparisons of CAB-align with other state-of-the-art protein structure alignment methods (TM-align, FATCAT, and DaliLite) using our benchmark dataset showed that CAB-align performed robustly in obtaining high-quality alignments and generating consistent multiple alignments with high coverage and accuracy rates, and it performed extremely well when discriminating between homologous and nonhomologous pairs of proteins in both single and multi-domain comparisons. The CAB-align software is freely available to academic users as stand-alone software at http://www.pharm.kitasato-u.ac.jp/bmd/bmd/Publications.html.

Dataset Information

Residue contact-count potentials are as effective as residue-residue contact-type potentials for ranking protein decoys.

Publications

Residue contact-count potentials are as effective as residue-residue contact-type potentials for ranking protein decoys.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets