George Chikenji | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Shaping up the protein folding funnel by local interaction: lesson from a structure prediction study.

Predicting protein tertiary structure by folding-like simulations is one of the most stringent tests of how much we understand the principle of protein folding. Currently, the most successful method for folding-based structure prediction is the fragment assembly (FA) method. Here, we address why the FA method is so successful and its lesson for the folding problem. To do so, using the FA method, we designed a structure prediction test of "chimera proteins." In the chimera proteins, local structural preference is specific to the target sequences, whereas nonlocal interactions are only sequence-independent compaction forces. We find that these chimera proteins can find the native folds of the intact sequences with high probability indicating dominant roles of the local interactions. We further explore roles of local structural preference by exact calculation of the HP lattice model of proteins. From these results, we suggest principles of protein folding: For small proteins, compact structures that are fully compatible with local structural preference are few, one of which is the native fold. These local biases shape up the funnel-like energy landscape.

Computer Simulation↗

PubMed2006

SimFold energy function for de novo protein structure prediction: consensus with Rosetta.

Predicting protein tertiary structures by in silico folding is still very difficult for proteins that have new folds. Here, we developed a coarse-grained energy function, SimFold, for de novo structure prediction, performed a benchmark test of prediction with fragment assembly simulations for 38 test proteins, and proposed consensus prediction with Rosetta. The SimFold energy consists of many terms that take into account solvent-induced effects on the basis of physicochemical consideration. In the benchmark test, SimFold succeeded in predicting native structures within 6.5 A for 12 of 38 proteins; this success rate was the same as that by the publicly available version of Rosetta (ab initio version 1.2) run with default parameters. We investigated which energy terms in SimFold contribute to structure prediction performance, finding that the hydrophobic interaction is the most crucial for the prediction, whereas other sequence-specific terms have weak but positive roles. In the benchmark, well-predicted proteins by SimFold and by Rosetta were not the same for 5 of 12 proteins, which led us to introduce consensus prediction. With combined decoys, we succeeded in prediction for 16 proteins, four more than SimFold or Rosetta separately. For each of 38 proteins, structural ensembles generated by SimFold and by Rosetta were qualitatively compared by mapping sampled structural space onto two dimensions. For proteins of which one of the two methods succeeded and the other failed in prediction, the former had a less scattered ensemble located around the native. For proteins of which both methods succeeded in prediction, often two ensembles were mixed up.

Alanine↗