Computational protein structure refinement: almost there, yet still so far to go

Advanced Review

Michael Feig

Published Online: Mar 28 2017

DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1307

Full article on Wiley Online Library: HTML PDF

Can't access this content? Tell your librarian.

Protein structures are essential in modern biology yet experimental methods are far from being able to catch up with the rapid increase in available genomic data. Computational protein structure prediction methods aim to fill the gap while the role of protein structure refinement is to take approximate initial template‐based models and bring them closer to the true native structure. Current methods for computational structure refinement rely on molecular dynamics simulations, related sampling methods, or iterative structure optimization protocols. The best methods are able to achieve moderate degrees of refinement but consistent refinement that can reach near‐experimental accuracy remains elusive. Key issues revolve around the accuracy of the energy function, the inability to reliably rank multiple models, and the use of restraints that keep sampling close to the native state but also limit the degree of possible refinement. A different aspect is the question of what exactly the target of high‐resolution refinement should be as experimental structures are affected by experimental conditions and different biological questions require varying levels of accuracy. While improvement of the global protein structure is a difficult problem, high‐resolution refinement methods that improve local structural quality such as favorable stereochemistry and the avoidance of atomic clashes are much more successful. WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2017, 7:e1307. doi: 10.1002/wcms.1307 This article is categorized under: Structure and Mechanism > Computational Biochemistry and Biophysics Molecular and Statistical Mechanics > Molecular Dynamics and Monte-Carlo Methods Software > Molecular Modeling

Typical refinement protocols via MD‐based sampling (left) and iterative structure optimization (right). Gray colors indicate optional elements. KB, knowledge‐based; MD, molecular dynamics.

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

Examples of successful protein structure refinement based on CASP12 targets (from CASP12 web site: http://www.predictioncenter.org/casp12/index.cgi). Experimental, initial, and refined structures are shown in red, green, and orange, respectively. RMSD values refer to Cα atom deviations. The GDT_HA score is explained in the text. RMSD, root‐mean‐square deviation.

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

References

Perutz, MF, Rossmann, MG, Cullis, AF, Muirhead, H, Will, G, North, ACT. Structure of haemoglobin—3‐dimensional fourier synthesis at 5.5‐Å resolution, obtained by X‐ray analysis. Nature 1960, 185:416–422.
Kendrew, JC, Bodo, G, Dintzis, HM, Parrish, RG, Wyckoff, H, Phillips, DC. 3‐Dimensional model of the myoglobin molecule obtained by X‐ray analysis. Nature 1958, 181:662–666.
Whisstock, JC, Lesk, AM. Prediction of protein function from protein sequence and structure. Q Rev Biophys 2003, 36:307–340.
Gane, PJ, Dean, PM. Recent advances in structure‐based rational drug design. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2000, 10:401–404.
Lutz, S. Beyond directed evolution—semi‐rational protein engineering and design. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2010, 21:734–743.
Durbin, RM. A map of human genome variation from population‐scale sequencing. Nature 2010, 467:1061–1073.
Rose, PW, Prlić, A, Altunkaya, A, Bi, C, Bradley, AR, Christie, CH, Costanzo, LD, Duarte, JM, Dutta, S, Feng, Z, et al. The RCSB protein data bank: integrative view of protein, gene and 3D structural information. Nucleic Acids Res 2016, 45:D271–D281.
Levitt, M. Protein conformation, dynamics, and folding by computer‐simulation. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng 1982, 11:251–271.
Garnier, J. Protein‐structure prediction. Biochimie 1990, 72:513–524.
Liwo, A, Lee, J, Ripoll, DR, Pillardy, J, Scheraga, HA. Protein structure prediction by global optimization of a potential energy function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999, 96:5482–5485.
Hardin, C, Pogorelov, TV, Luthey‐Schulten, Z. Ab initio protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2002, 12:176–181.
Levitt, M. Simplified representation of protein conformations for rapid simulation of protein folding. J Mol Biol 1976, 104:59–107.
Dill, KA, Bromberg, S, Yue, KZ, Fiebig, KM, Yee, DP, Thomas, PD, Chan, HS. Principles of protein‐folding—a perspective from simple exact models. Protein Sci 1995, 4:561–602.
Shakhnovich, E. Protein folding thermodynamics and dynamics: where physics, chemistry, and biology meet. Chem Rev 2006, 106:1559–1588.
Bonneau, R, Baker, D. Ab initio protein structure prediction: progress and prospects. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2001, 30:173–189.
Simmerling, C, Strockbine, B, Roitberg, AE. All‐atom structure prediction and folding simulations of a stable protein. J Am Chem Soc 2002, 124:11258–11259.
Baker, D, Sali, A. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science 2001, 294:93–96.
Al‐Lazikani, B, Jung, J, Xiang, ZX, Honig, B. Protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2001, 5:51–56.
Blundell, TL, Sibanda, BL, Sternberg, MJE, Thornton, JM. Knowledge‐based prediction of protein structures and the design of novel molecules. Nature 1987, 326:347–352.
Dudek, MJ, Ramnarayan, K, Ponder, JW. Protein structure prediction using a combination of sequence homology and global energy minimization: II. Energy functions. J Comput Chem 1998, 19:548–573.
Sali, A, Blundell, TL. Comparative protein modeling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol 1993, 234:779–815.
Xu, D, Zhang, Y. Ab initio protein structure assembly using continuous structure fragments and optimized knowledge‐based force field. Proteins 2012, 80:1715–1735.
Zhang, Y, Arakaki, AK, Skolnick, JR. TASSER: an automated method for the prediction of protein tertiary structures in CASP6. Proteins 2005, 61:91–98.
Rohl, CA, Strauss, CE, Misura, KM, Baker, D. Protein structure prediction using rosetta. Methods Enzymol 2004, 383:66–93.
Kryshtafovych, A, Fidelis, K, Moult, J. CASP10 results compared to those of previous CASP experiments. Proteins 2014, 82:164–174.
Moult, J, Fidelis, K, Kryshtafovych, A, Schwede, T, Tramontano, A. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction: progress and new directions in round XI. Proteins 2016, 84(suppl 1):4–14.
Yang, J, Zhang, W, He, B, Walker, SE, Zhang, H, Govindarajoo, B, Virtanen, J, Xue, Z, Shen, H‐B, Zhang, Y. Template‐based protein structure prediction in CASP11 and retrospect of I‐TASSER in the last decade. Proteins 2016, 84(suppl 1):233–246.
Zhu, J, Xie, L, Honig, B. Structural refinement of protein segments containing secondary structure elements: local sampling, knowledge‐based potentials, and clustering. Proteins 2006, 65:463–479.
Xun, S, Jiang, F, Wu, Y‐D. Significant refinement of protein structure models using a residue‐specific force field. J Chem Theory Comput 2015, 11:1949–1956.
Verma, A, Wenzel, W. Protein structure prediction by all‐atom free‐energy refinement. BMC Struct Biol 2007, 7:12.
Stumpff‐Kane, AW, Maksimiak, K, Lee, MS, Feig, M. Sampling of near‐native protein conformations during protein structure refinement using a coarse‐grained model, normal modes, and molecular dynamics simulations. Proteins 2008, 70:1345–1356.
Raval, A, Piana, S, Eastwood, MP, Dror, RO, Shaw, DE. Refinement of protein structure homology models via long, all‐atom molecular dynamics simulations. Proteins 2012, 80:2071–2079.
Misura, KMS, Baker, D. Progress and challenges in high‐resolution refinement of protein structure models. Proteins 2005, 2005:15–29.
Chen, J, Brooks, CL III. Can molecular dynamics simulations provide high‐resolution refinement of protein structure? Proteins 2007, 67:922–930.
Lee, MS, Olson, MA. Assessment of detection and refinement strategies for de novo protein structures using force field and statistical potentials. J Chem Theory Comput 2007, 3:312–324.
Fan, H, Mark, AE. Refinement of homology‐based protein structures by molecular dynamics simulation techniques. Protein Sci 2004, 13:211–220.
Chen, JH, Im, W, Brooks, CL. Refinement of NMR structures using implicit solvent and advanced sampling techniques. J Am Chem Soc 2004, 126:16038–16047.
Lee, SY, Zhang, Y, Skolnick, J. TASSER‐based refinement of NMR structures. Proteins 2006, 63:451–456.
Raves, ML, Doreleijers, JF, Vis, H, Vorgias, CE, Wilson, KS, Kaptein, R. Joint refinement as a tool for thorough comparison between NMR and X‐ray data and structures of HU protein. J Biomol NMR 2001, 21:235–248.
Adams, PD, Pannu, NS, Brünger, AT. Cross‐validated maximum likelihood enhances crystallographic simulated annealing refinement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997, 94:5018–5023.
Kidera, A, Go, N. Refinement of protein dynamic structure—normal mode refinement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990, 87:3718–3722.
Topf, M, Baker, ML, Marti‐Renom, MA, Chiu, W, Sali, A. Refinement of protein structures by iterative comparative modeling and cryoEM density fitting. J Mol Biol 2006, 357:1655–1668.
Grishaev, A, Ying, J, Canny, MD, Pardi, A, Bax, A. Solution structure of tRNA^Val from refinement of homology model against residual dipolar coupling and SAXS data. J Biomol NMR 2008, 42:99–109.
Rozycki, B, Kim, YC, Hummer, G. SAXS ensemble refinement of ESCRT‐III CHMP3 conformational transitions. Structure 2010, 19:109–116.
Rozbesky, D, Man, P, Kavan, D, Chmelik, J, Cerny, J, Bezouska, K, Novak, P. Chemical cross‐linking and H/D exchange for fast refinement of protein crystal structure. Anal Chem 2012, 84:867–870.
Modi, V, Dunbrack, RLJ. Assessment of refinement of template‐based models in CASP11. Proteins 2016, 84(Suppl. 1):260–281.
Heo, L, Park, H, Seok, C. GalaxyRefine: protein structure refinement driven by side‐chain repacking. Nucleic Acids Res 2013, 41:W384–W388.
Headd, JJ, Immormino, RM, Keedy, DA, Emsley, P, Richardson, DC, Richardson, JS. Autofix for backward‐fit sidechains: using molprobity and real‐space refinement to put misfits in their place. J Struct Funct Genomics 2009, 10:83–93.
Feig, M. Local protein structure refinement via molecular dynamics simulation with locPREFMD. J Chem Inf Model 2016, 56:1304–1312.
Laskowski, RA, MacArthur, MW, Moss, DS, Thornton, JM. PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures. J Appl Cryst 1993, 26:283–291.
Gront, D, Kmiecik, S, Blaszczyk, M, Ekonomiuk, D, Kolinski, A. Optimization of protein models. Wiley Interdiscp Rev Comput Mol Sci 2012, 2:479–493.
Lee, MR, Tsai, J, Baker, D, Kollman, PA. Molecular dynamics in the endgame of protein structure prediction. J Mol Biol 2001, 2001:417–430.
Park, H, Seok, C. Refinement of unreliable local regions in template‐based protein models. Proteins 2012, 80:1974–1986.
Park, H, Ko, J, Joo, K, Lee, J, Seok, C, Lee, J. Refinement of protein termini in template‐based modeling using conformational space annealing. Proteins 2011, 79:2725–2734.
Bhattacharya, D, Cheng, JL. 3Drefine: consistent protein structure refinement by optimizing hydrogen bonding network and atomic‐level energy minimization. Proteins 2013, 81:119–131.
Lu, H, Skolnick, J. Application of statistical potentials to protein structure refinement from low resolution ab initio models. Biopolymers 2003, 70:575–584.
Jonassen, I, Klose, D, Taylor, WR. Protein model refinement using structural fragment tessellation. Comput Biol Chem 2006, 30:360–366.
Park, IH, Gangupomu, V, Wagner, J, Jain, A, Vaidehi, N. Structure refinement of protein low resolution models using the GNEIMO constrained dynamics method. J Phys Chem B 2012, 116:2365–2375.
Cao, W, Terada, T, Nakamura, S, Shimizu, K. Refinement of comparative‐modeling structures by multicanonical molecular dynamics. Genome Inf 2003, 14:484–485.
Ishitani, R, Terada, T, Shimizu, K. Refinement of comparative models of protein structure by using multicanonical molecular dynamics simulations. Mol Simul 2008, 34:327–336.
Mirjalili, V, Noyes, K, Feig, M. Physics‐based protein structure refinement through multiple molecular dynamics trajectories and structure averaging. Proteins 2014, 82:196–207.
Mirjalili, V, Feig, M. Protein structure refinement through structure selection and averaging from molecular dynamics ensembles. J Chem Theory Comput 2013, 9:1294–1303.
Nugent, T, Cozzetto, D, Jones, DT. Evaluation of predictions in the CASP10 model refinement category. Proteins 2014, 82:98–111.
MacCallum, JL, Perez, A, Schnieders, MJ, Hua, L, Jacobson, MP, Dill, KA. Assessment of protein structure refinement in CASP9. Proteins 2011, 79:74–90.
MacCallum, JL, Hua, L, Schnieders, MJ, Pande, VS, Jacobson, MP, Dill, KA. Assessment of the protein‐structure refinement category in CASP8. Proteins 2009, 77:66–80.
Feig, M, Mirjalili, V. Protein structure refinement via molecular‐dynamics simulations: what works and what does not? Proteins 2016, 84 (Suppl. 1):282–292.
Cruickshank, DWJ. Remarks about protein structure precision. Acta Crystallogr D 1999, 55:583–601.
Himo, F. Quantum chemical modeling of enzyme active sites and reaction mechanisms. Theor Chem Acc 2006, 116:232–240.
Cavasotto, CN. Homology models in docking and high‐throughput docking. Curr Top Med Chem 2011, 11:1528–1534.
Capriotti, E. Comparative modeling and structure prediction: application to drug discovery. In: Lill M, ed. In Silico Drug Discovery and Design. London: Future Medicine; 2013, 34–48.
Vajda, S, Kozakov, D. Convergence and combination of methods in protein‐protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2009, 19:164–170.
Wieman, H, Tondel, K, Anderssen, E, Drablos, F. Homology‐based modelling of targets for rational drug design. Mini Rev Med Chem 2004, 4:793–804.
Bordogna, A, Pandini, A, Bonati, L. Predicting the accuracy of protein‐ligand docking on homology models. J Comput Chem 2011, 32:81–98.
Du, H, Brender, JR, Zhang, J, Zhang, Y. Protein structure prediction provides comparable performance to crystallographic structures in docking‐based virtual screening. Methods 2015, 71:77–84.
Wang, C, Bradley, P, Baker, D. Protein‐protein docking with backbone flexibility. J Mol Biol 2007, 373:503–519.
Bonvin, AMJJ. Flexible protein‐protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006, 16:194–200.
Bastard, K, Prévost, C, Zacharias, M. Accounting for loop flexibility during protein‐protein docking. Proteins 2006, 62:956–969.
Janin, J, Rodier, F. Protein‐protein interaction at crystal contacts. Proteins 1995, 23:580–587.
Jacobson, MP, Friesner, RA, Xiang, Z, Honig, B. On the role of the crystal environment in determining protein side‐chain conformations. J Mol Biol 2002, 320:597–608.
Kundu, S, Melton, JS, Sorensen, DC, Phillips, GN Jr. Dynamics of proteins in crystals: comparison of experiment with simple models. Biophys J 2002, 83:723–732.
Burnley, BT, Afonine, PV, Adams, PD, Gros, P. Modelling dynamics in protein crystal structures by ensemble refinement. Elife 2012, 1:e00311.
Summa, CM, Levitt, M. Near‐native structure refinement using in vacuo energy minimization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:3177–3182.
Rodrigues, JPGLM, Levitt, M, Chopra, G. KoBaMIN: a knowledge‐based minimization web server for protein structure refinement. Nucleic Acids Res 2012, 40:W323–W328.
Larsen, AB, Wagner, JR, Jain, A, Vaidehi, N. Protein structure refinement of CASP target proteins using GNEIMO torsional dynamics method. J Chem Inf Model 2014, 54:508–517.
Feig, M, Gopal, SM, Vadivel, K, Stumpff‐Kane, AW. Conformational sampling in structure prediction and refinement with atomistic and coarse‐grained models. In: Kolinski, A, ed. Multiscale Approaches to Protein Modeling: Structure Prediction, Dynamics, Thermodynamics and Macromolecular Assemblies. New York City: Springer; 2010.
Engh, RA, Huber, R. Accurate bond and angle parameters for X‐ray protein‐structure refinement. Acta Crystallogr A 1991, 47:392–400.
Jagielska, A, Wroblewska, L, Skolnick, J. Protein model refinement using an optimized physics‐based all‐atom force field. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008, 105:8268–8273.
Carlsen, M, Rogen, P. Protein structure refinement by optimization. Proteins 2015, 83:1616–1624.
Della Corte, D, Wildberg, A, Schröder, GF. Protein structure refinement with adaptively restrained homologous replicas. Proteins 2016, 84(Suppl. 1):302–313.
Wildberg, A, Della Corte, D, Schroder, GF. Coupling an ensemble of homologues improves refinement of protein homology models. J Chem Theory Comput 2015, 11:5578–5582.
Kmiecik, S, Gront, D, Kolinski, A. Towards the high‐resolution protein structure prediction: fast refinement of reduced models with all‐atom force field. BMC Struct Biol 2007, 7:43.
Zhang, Y. Protein structure prediction: when is it useful? Curr Opin Struct Biol 2009, 19:145–155.
Bhattacharya, D, Cheng, JL. i3Drefine software for protein 3D structure refinement and its assessment in CASP10. PLoS One 2013, 8:e69648.
Lin, MS, Head‐Gordon, T. Reliable protein structure refinement using a physical energy function. J Comput Chem 2011, 32:709–717.
Lee, GR, Heo, L, Seok, C. Effective protein model structure refinement by loop modeling and overall relaxation. Proteins 2016, 84(suppl 1):293–301.
Hospital, A, Goñi, JR, Orozco, M, Gelpi, JL. Molecular dynamics simulations: advances and applications. Adv Appl Bioinform Chem 2015, 8:37–47.
Best, RB, Zhu, X, Shim, J, Lopes, P, Mittal, J, Feig, M, MacKerell, AD Jr. Optimization of the additive CHARMM all‐atom protein force field targeting improved sampling of the backbone ϕ, ψ and side‐chain χ1 and χ2 dihedral angles. J Chem Theory Comput 2012, 8:3257–3273.
Lindorff‐Larsen, K, Maragakis, P, Piana, S, Eastwood, MP, Dror, RO, Shaw, DE. Systematic validation of protein force fields against experimental data. PLoS One 2012, 7:e32131.
Lindorff‐Larsen, K, Piana, S, Dror, RO, Shaw, DE. How fast‐folding proteins fold. Science 2011, 334:517–520.
Best, RB, Mittal, J, Feig, M, MacKerell, AD. Inclusion of many‐body effects in the additive CHARMM protein CMAP potential results in enhanced cooperativity of α‐helix and β‐hairpin formation. Biophys J 2012, 103:1045–1051.
Lane, TJ, Shukla, D, Beauchamp, KA, Pande, VS. To milliseconds and beyond: challenges in the simulation of protein folding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2013, 23:58–65.
Perez, A, Morrone, JA, Simmerling, C, Dill, KA. Advances in free‐energy‐based simulations of protein folding and ligand binding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2016, 36:25–31.
Lee, MR, Baker, D, Kollman, PA. 2.1 and 1.8 A average C(alpha) RMSD structure predictions on two small proteins, HP‐36 and s15. J Am Chem Soc 2001, 123:1040–1046.
van der Kamp, MW, Schaeffer, RD, Jonsson, AL, Scouras, AD, Simms, AM, Toofanny, RD, Benson, NC, Anderson, PC, Merkley, ED, Rysavy, S, et al. Dynameomics: a comprehensive database of protein dynamics. Structure 2010, 18:423–435.
Wroblewska, L, Skolnick, J. Can a physics‐based, all‐atom potential find a protein`s native structure among misfolded structures? I. Large scale AMBER benchmarking. J Comput Chem 2007, 28:2059–2066.
Zhang, J, Liang, Y, Zhang, Y. Atomic‐level protein structure refinement using fragment‐guided molecular dynamics conformation sampling. Structure 2011, 19:1784–1795.
Huang, J, Rauscher, S, Nawrocki, G, Ran, T, Feig, M, de Groot, BL, Grubmüller, H, MacKerell, AD Jr. CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat Methods 2017, 14:71–73.
Cino, EA, Choy, WY, Karttunen, M. Comparison of secondary structure formation using 10 different force fields in microsecond molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Theory Comput 2012, 8:2725–2740.
Maier, JA, Martinez, C, Kasavajhala, K, Wickstrom, L, Hauser, KE, Simmerling, C. ff14SB: improving the accuracy of protein side chain and backbone parameters from ff99SB. J Chem Theory Comput 2015, 11:3696–3713.
Zhou, CY, Jiang, F, Wu, YD. Residue‐specific force field based on protein coil library. RSFF2: modification of AMBER ff99SB. J Phys Chem B 2015, 119:1035–1047.
Mackerell, AD. Empirical force fields for biological macromolecules: overview and issues. J Comput Chem 2004, 25:1584–1604.
Lindorff‐Larsen, K, Piana, S, Palmo, K, Maragakis, P, Klepeis, JL, Dror, RO, Shaw, DE. Improved side‐chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins 2010, 78:1950–1958.
Oostenbrink, C, Villa, A, Mark, AE, van Gunsteren, WF. A biomolecular force field based on the free enthalpy of hydration and solvation: the GROMOS force‐field parameter sets 53A5 and 53A6. J Comput Chem 2004, 25:1656–1676.
Fluitt, AM, de Pablo, JJ. An analysis of biomolecular force fields for simulations of polyglutamine in solution. Biophys J 2015, 109:1009–1018.
Lindorff‐Larsen, K, Trbovic, N, Maragakis, P, Piana, S, Shaw, DE. Structure and dynamics of an unfolded protein examined by molecular dynamics simulation. J Am Chem Soc 2012, 134:3787–3791.
Best, RB, Zheng, W, Mittal, J. Balanced protein‐water interactions improve properties of disorderd proteins and non‐specific protein association. J Chem Theory Comput 2014, 10:5113–5124.
Piana, S, Donchev, AG, Robustelli, P, Shaw, DE. Water dispersion interactions strongly influence simulated structural properties of disordered protein states. J Phys Chem B 2015, 119:5113–5123.
Zhang, J, Barz, B, Zhang, JF, Xu, D, Kosztin, I. Selective refinement and selection of near‐native models in protein structure prediction. Proteins 2015, 83:1823–1835.
Wroblewska, L, Jagielska, A, Skolnick, J. Development of a physics‐based force field for the scoring and refinement of protein models. Biophys J 2008, 94:3227–3240.
Zhu, J, Fan, H, Periole, X, Honig, B, Mark, AE. Refining homology models by combining replica‐exchange molecular dynamics and statistical potentials. Proteins 2008, 72:1171–1188.
Chopra, G, Summa, CM, Levitt, M. Solvent dramatically affects protein structure refinement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008, 105:20239–20244.
Krol, M. Comparison of various implicit solvent models in molecular dynamics simulations of immunoglobulin G light chain dimer. J Comput Chem 2003, 24:531–546.
Roux, B, Simonson, T. Implicit solvent models. Biophys Chem 1999, 78:1–20.
Feig, M, Brooks, CL III. Recent advances in the development and application of implicit solvent models in biomolecule simulations. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2004, 14:217–224.
Feig, M, Chocholousova, J, Tanizaki, S. Extending the horizon: towards the efficient modeling of large biomolecular complexes in atomic detail. Theor Chem Acc 2006, 116:194–205.
Khoury, GA, Tamamis, P, Pinnaduwage, N, Smadbeck, J, Kieslich, CA, Floudas, CA. Princeton_TIGRESS: protein geometry refinement using simulations and support vector machines. Proteins 2014, 82:794–814.
Olson, MA, Lee, MS. Structure refinement of protein model decoys requires accurate side‐chain placement. Proteins 2013, 81:469–478.
Olson, MA, Chaudhury, S, Lee, MS. Comparison between self‐guided langevin dynamics and molecular dynamics simulations for structure refinement of protein loop conformations. J Comput Chem 2011, 32:3014–3022.
Lee, MS, Olson, MA. Protein folding simulations combining self‐guided langevin dynamics and temperature‐based replica exchange. J Chem Theory Comput 2010, 6:2477–2487.
Vitalis, A, Pappu, RV. ABSINTH: a new continuum solvation model for simulations of polypeptides in aqueous solutions. J Comput Chem 2009, 30:673–699.
Felts, AK, Gallicchio, E, Chekmarev, D, Paris, KA, Friesner, RA, Levy, RM. Prediction of protein loop conformations using the AGBNP implicit solvent model and torsion angle sampling. J Chem Theory Comput 2008, 4:855–868.
Olson, MA, Feig, M, Brooks, CL. Prediction of protein loop conformations using multiscale Modeling methods with physical energy scoring functions. J Comput Chem 2008, 29:820–831.
Zhu, J, Alexov, E, Honig, B. Comparative study of generalized Born models: Born radii and peptide folding. J Phys Chem B 2005, 109:3008–3022.
Nymeyer, H, Garcia, AE. Simulation of the folding equilibrium of α‐helical peptides: a comparison of the generalized Born approximation with explicit solvent. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003, 100:13934–13939.
Zhou, RH. Free energy landscape of protein folding in water: explicit vs. implicit solvent. Proteins 2003, 53:148–161.
Ozkan, SB, Wu, GA, Chodera, JD, Dill, KA. Protein folding by zipping and assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:11987–11992.
Chen, JH, Brooks, CL, Khandogin, J. Recent advances in implicit solvent‐based methods for biomolecular simulations. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2008, 18:140–148.
Chen, JH, Im, WP, Brooks, CL. Balancing solvation and intramolecular interactions: Toward a consistent generalized born force field. J Am Chem Soc 2006, 128:3728–3736.
Onufriev, A, Bashford, D, Case, DA. Exploring protein native states and large‐scale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model. Proteins 2004, 55:383–394.
Roe, DR, Okur, A, Wickstrom, L, Hornak, V, Simmerling, C. Secondary structure bias in generalized born solvent models: comparison of conformational ensembles and free energy of solvent polarization from explicit and implicit solvation. J Phys Chem B 2007, 111:1846–1857.
Tozzini, V. Coarse‐grained models for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2005, 15:144–150.
Kar, P, Feig, M. Recent advances in transferable coarse‐grained modeling of proteins. Adv Prot Chem Struct Biol 2014, 96:143–180.
Krupa, P, Mozolewska, MA, Wisniewska, M, Yin, YP, He, Y, Sieradzan, AK, Ganzynkowicz, R, Lipska, AG, Karczynska, A, Slusarz, M, et al. Performance of protein‐structure predictions with the physics‐based UNRES force field in CASP11. Bioinformatics 2016, 32:3270–3278.
Lee, J, Liwo, A, Scheraga, HA. Energy‐based de novo protein folding by conformational space annealing and an off‐lattice united‐residue force field: application to the 10–55 fragment of Staphylococcal protein A and to apo calbindin D9K. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999, 96:2025–2030.
Gopal, SM, Mukherjee, S, Cheng, Y‐M, Feig, M. PRIMO/PRIMONA: a coarse‐grained model for proteins and nucleic acids that preserves near‐atomistic accuracy. Proteins 2010, 78:1266–1281.
Kar, P, Gopal, SM, Cheng, YM, Predeus, AV, Feig, M. PRIMO: a transferable coarse‐grained force field for proteins. J Chem Theory Comput 2013, 9:3769–3788.
Kumar, A, Campitelli, P, Thorpe, MF, Ozkan, SB. Partial unfolding and refolding for structure refinement: a unified approach of geometric simulations and molecular dynamics. Proteins 2015, 83:2279–2292.
Perez, A, Morrone, JA, Brini, E, MacCallum, JL, Dill, KA. Blind protein structure prediction using accelerated free‐energy simulations. Sci Adv 2016, 2:e1601274.
Sugita, Y, Okamoto, Y. Replica‐exchange molecular dynamics method for protein folding. Chem Phys Lett 1999, 314:141–151.
Abrams, C, Bussi, G. Enhanced Sampling in molecular dynamics using metadynamics, replica‐exchange, and temperature‐acceleration. Entropy 2014, 16:163–199.
Rao, F, Caflisch, A. Replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations of reversible folding. J Chem Phys 2003, 119:4035–4042.
Rhee, YM, Pande, VS. Multiplexed‐replica exchange molecular dynamics method for protein folding simulation. Biophys J 2003, 84:775–786.
Paschek, D, Gnanakaran, S, Garcia, AE. Simulations of the pressure and temperature unfolding of an alpha‐helical peptide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005, 102:6765–6770.
Baumketner, A, Shea, JE. The thermodynamics of folding of a beta hairpin peptide probed through replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations. Theor Chem Acc 2006, 116:262–273.
Paschek, D, Nymeyer, H, Garcia, AE. Replica exchange simulation of reversible folding/unfolding of the Trp‐cage miniprotein in explicit solvent: on the structure and possible role of internal water. J Struct Biol 2007, 157:524–533.
Su, L, Cukier, RI. Hamiltonian and distance replica exchange method studies of Met‐enkephalin. J Phys Chem B 2007, 111:12310–12321.
Olson, MA, Lee, MS. Evaluation of unrestrained replica‐exchange simulations using dynamic walkers in temperature space for protein structure refinement. PLoS One 2014, 9:e96638.
Park, H, DiMaio, F, Baker, D. CASP11 refinement experiments with ROSETTA. Proteins 2016, 84(suppl 1):314–322.
Chen, JH, Im, W, Brooks, CL. Application of torsion angle molecular dynamics for efficient sampling of protein conformations. J Comput Chem 2005, 26:1565–1578.
Jacobson, MP, Pincus, DL, Rapp, CS, Day, TJF, Honig, B, Shaw, DE, Friesner, RA. A hierarchical approach to all‐atom protein loop prediction. Proteins 2004, 55:351–367.
Chinchio, M, Czaplewski, C, Oldziej, S, Scheraga, HA. A hierarchical multiscale approach to protein structure prediction: production of low‐resolution packing arrangements of helices and refinement of the best models with a united‐residue force field. Multiscale Model Simul 2006, 5:1175–1195.
Harada, R, Kitao, A. Exploring the folding free energy landscape of a beta‐hairpin miniprotein, chignolin, using multiscale free energy landscape calculation method. J Phys Chem B 2011, 115:8806–8812.
Feig, M, Karanicolas, J, Brooks, CL III. MMTSB tool set: enhanced sampling and multiscale modeling methods for applications in structural biology. J Mol Graph Model 2004, 22:377–395.
Zhang, W, Chen, J. Accelerate sampling in atomistic energy landscapes using topology‐based coarse‐grained models. J Chem Theory Comput 2014, 10:918–923.
Chen, Y, Roux, B. Enhanced sampling of an atomic model with hybrid nonequilibrium molecular dynamics‐Monte Carlo simulations guided by a coarse‐grained model. J Chem Theory Comput 2015, 11:3572–3583.
Bhattacharya, D, Cheng, J. Protein structure refinement by iterative fragment exchange. In: International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedical Informatics, BCB`13, Washington, DC; 2013.
Lee, MC, Duan, Y. Distinguishing protein decoys by using a scoring function based on a new AMBER force field, short molecular dynamics simulations, and the generalized Born solvent model. Proteins 2004, 55:620–634.
Stumpff‐Kane, AW, Feig, M. A correlation‐based method for the enhancement of scoring functions on funnel‐shaped energy landscapes. Proteins 2006, 63:155–164.
Shen, MY, Sali, A. Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci 2006, 15:2507–2524.
Feig, M, Brooks, CL III. Evaluating CASP4 predictions with physical energy functions. Proteins 2002, 49:232–245.
Zhang, C, Liu, S, Zhou, HY, Zhou, YQ. An accurate, residue‐level, pair potential of mean force for folding and binding based on the distance‐scaled, ideal‐gas reference state. Protein Sci 2004, 13:400–411.
Zhang, Y, Skolnick, J. SPICKER: a clustering approach to identify near‐native protein folds. J Comput Chem 2004, 25:865–871.
Skolnick, J. In quest of an empirical potential for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006, 16:166–171.
Rykunov, D, Fiser, A. New statistical potential for quality assessment of protein models and a survey of energy functions. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:128.
Park, H, DiMaio, F, Baker, D. The origin of consistent protein structure refinement from structural averaging. Structure 2015, 23:1–6.
Cerutti, DS, Freddolino, PL, Duke, RE Jr, Case, DA. Simulations of a protein crystal with a high resolution X‐ray structure: evaluation of force fields and water models. J Phys Chem B 2010, 114:12811–12824.
Chen, VB, Arendall, WB, Headd, JJ, Keedy, DA, Immormino, RM, Kapral, GJ, Murray, LW, Richardson, JS, Richardson, DC. MolProbity: all‐atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr D 2010, 66:12–21.
Kalisman, N, Levi, A, Maximova, T, Reshef, D, Zafiri‐Lynn, S, Gleyzer, Y, Kaesar, C. MESHI: a new library of Java classes for molecular modeling. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:3931–3932.
Kortemme, T, Morozov, AV, Baker, D. An orientation‐dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein‐protein complexes. J Mol Biol 2003, 326:1239–1259.
Zemla, A, Venclovas, C, Moult, J, Fidelis, K. Processing and analysis of CASP3 protein structure predictions. Proteins 1999, 37(suppl 3):22–29.
Bhattacharya, D, Nowotny, J, Cao, RZ, Cheng, JL. 3Drefine: an interactive web server for efficient protein structure refinement. Nucleic Acids Res 2016, 44:W406–W409.
Zhou, HY, Zhou, YQ. Distance‐scaled, finite ideal‐gas reference state improves structure‐derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction. Protein Sci 2002, 11:2714–2726.
Zhang, J, Zhang, Y. A novel side‐chain orientation dependent potential derived from random‐walk reference state for protein fold selection and structure prediction. PLoS One 2010, 5:e15386.
Wang, K, Fain, B, Levitt, M, Samudrala, R. Improved protein structure selection using decoy‐dependent discriminatory functions. BMC Struct Biol 2004, 4:8.
Zhou, H, Skolnick, J. GOAP: a generalized orientation‐dependent, all‐atom statistical potential for protein structure prediction. Biophys J 2011, 101:2043–2052.
Yang, YD, Zhou, YQ. Specific interactions for ab initio folding of protein terminal regions with secondary structures. Proteins 2008, 72:793–803.
Ko, J, Park, H, Heo, L, Seok, C. GalaxyWEB server for protein structure prediction and refinement. Nucleic Acids Res 2012, 40:W294–W297.
Huang, YJP, Mao, BC, Aramini, JM, Montelione, GT. Assessment of template‐based protein structure predictions in CASP10. Proteins 2014, 82:43–56.
Liu, T, Wang, YH, Eickholt, J, Wang, Z. Benchmarking deep networks for predicting residue‐specific quality of individual protein models in CASP11. Sci Rep‐UK 2016, 6:19301.
Paton, RS, Goodman, JM. Hydrogen bonding and pi‐stacking: how reliable are force fields? A critical evaluation of force field descriptions of nonbonded interactions. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:944–955.
Lopes, PEM, Huang, J, Shim, J, Luo, Y, Li, H, Roux, B, MacKerell, AD Jr. Polarizable force field for peptides and proteins based on the classical drude oscillator. J Chem Theory Comput 2013, 9:5430–5449.
Cheng, J. A multi‐template combination algorithm for protein comparative modeling. BMC Struct Biol 2008, 8:18.
Martin, J, Hartl, FU. Chaperone‐assisted protein folding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1997, 7:41–52.
Yu, I, Mori, T, Ando, T, Harada, R, Jung, J, Sugita, Y, Feig, M. Biomolecular interactions modulate macromolecular structure and dynamics in atomistic model of a bacterial cytoplasm. Elife 2016, 5:e19274.
Feig, M, Sugita, Y. Reaching new levels of realism in modeling biological macromolecules in cellular environments. J Mol Graph Model 2013, 45:144–156.
Barth, P, Wallner, B, Baker, D. Prediction of membrane protein structures with complex topologies using limited constraints. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009, 106:1409–1414.
Elofsson, A, von Heijne, G. Membrane protein structure: prediction versus reality. Annu Rev Biochem 2007, 76:125–140.
Leman, JK, Umschneider, MB, Gray, JJ. Computational modeling of membrane proteins. Proteins 2015, 83:1–24.
Yuzlenko, O, Lazaridis, T. Membrane protein native state discrimination by implicit membrane models. J Comput Chem 2013, 34:731–738.
Gao, C, Stern, HA. Scoring function accuracy for membrane protein structure prediction. Proteins 2007, 68:67–75.
Weiner, BE, Woetzel, N, Karakas, M, Alexander, N, Meiler, J. BCL::MP‐Fold: folding membrane proteins through assembly of transmembrane helices. Structure 2013, 21:1107–1117.

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

Recommend to Your
Librarian Now!

Computational protein structure refinement: almost there, yet still so far to go

Browse by Topic

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

The latest WIREs articles in your inbox