| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7260, USA
Reprint requests to: Jan Hermans, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7260, USA; e-mail: hermans{at}med.unc.edu; fax: (919) 842-9244.
We have calculated the stability of decoy structures of several proteins (from the CASP3 models and the Park and Levitt decoy set) relative to the native structures. The calculations were performed with the force field–consistent ES/IS method, in which an implicit solvent (IS) model is used to calculate the average solvation free energy for snapshots from explicit simulations (ESs). The conformational free energy is obtained by adding the internal energy of the solute from the ESs and an entropic term estimated from the covariance positional fluctuation matrix. The set of atomic Born radii and the cavity-surface free energy coefficient used in the implicit model has been optimized to be consistent with the all-atom force field used in the ESs (cedar/gromos with simple point charge (SPC) water model). The decoys are found to have a consistently higher free energy than that of the native structure; the gap between the native structure and the best decoy varies between 10 and 15 kcal/mole, on the order of the free energy difference that typically separates the native state of a protein from the unfolded state. The correlation between the free energy and the extent to which the decoy structures differ from the native (as root mean square deviation) is very weak; hence, the free energy is not an accurate measure for ranking the structurally most native-like structures from among a set of models. Analysis of the energy components shows that stability is attained as a result of three major driving forces: (1) minimum size of the protein-water surface interface; (2) minimum total electrostatic energy, which includes solvent polarization; and (3) minimum protein packing energy. The detailed fit required to optimize the last term may underlie difficulties encountered in recovering the native fold from an approximate decoy or model structure.
Keywords: Protein conformation; free energy; scoring function; ES/IS method; implicit solvation model; molecular surface; electrostatic free energy; internal packing energy
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Eramian, M.-y. Shen, D. Devos, F. Melo, A. Sali, and M. A. Marti-Renom A composite score for predicting errors in protein structure models Protein Sci., July 1, 2006; 15(7): 1653 - 1666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Wallner and A. Elofsson Identification of correct regions in protein models using structural, alignment, and consensus information Protein Sci., April 1, 2006; 15(4): 900 - 913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Fogolari and S. C.E. Tosatto Application of MM/PBSA colony free energy to loop decoy discrimination: Toward correlation between energy and root mean square deviation Protein Sci., April 1, 2005; 14(4): 889 - 901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Urbanc, L. Cruz, F. Ding, D. Sammond, S. Khare, S. V. Buldyrev, H. E. Stanley, and N. V. Dokholyan Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Amyloid {beta} Dimer Formation Biophys. J., October 1, 2004; 87(4): 2310 - 2321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Fan and A. E. Mark Mimicking the action of folding chaperones in molecular dynamics simulations: Application to the refinement of homology-based protein structures Protein Sci., April 1, 2004; 13(4): 992 - 999. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Wallner and A. Elofsson Can correct protein models be identified? Protein Sci., May 1, 2003; 12(5): 1073 - 1086. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
