0% found this document useful (0 votes)
7 views40 pages

Protein Structure Prediction Methods

notes

Uploaded by

premsstr
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
7 views40 pages

Protein Structure Prediction Methods

notes

Uploaded by

premsstr
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

aim

Structure prediction tries to build models of


3D structures of proteins that could be useful
for understanding structure-function
relationships.
Genbank/EMBL 105.000.000
Uniprot 5.200.000
PDB 47.000
The protein folding problem
The information for 3D structures is coded in
the protein sequence

Proteins fold in their native structure in


seconds

Native structures are both


thermodynamically stables and kinetically
available
ab-initio prediction
Prediction from sequence using first
principles

AVVTW...GTTWVR
Ab-initio prediction
“In theory”, we should be able to build native
structures from first principles using
sequence information and molecular
dynamics simulations: “Ab-initio prediction of
structure”

 Simulaciones de 1 s de “folding” de una proteína


modelo (Duan-Kollman: Science, 277, 1793, 1998).
 Simulaciones de folding reversible de péptidos (20-200
ns) (Daura et al., Angew. Chem., 38, 236, 1999).
 Simulaciones distribuidas de folding de Villin (36-
residues) (Zagrovic et al., JMB, 323, 927, 2002).
... the bad news ...
It is not possible to span simulations to the
“seconds” range
Simulations are limited to small systems and
fast folding/unfolding events in known
structures
steered dynamics
biased molecular dynamics
Simplified systems
typical shortcuts
Reduce conformational space
 1,2 atoms per residue
 fixed lattices

Statistic force-fields obtained from known


structures
 Average distances between residues
 Interactions

Use building blocks: 3-9 residues from PDB


structures
Results

from ab-initio
Average error 5 Å -
10 Å
Function cannot be
predicted
Long simulations

Some protein from [Link]


predicted at 7.6 Å
(CASP3, [Link])
comparative modelling
The most efficient way to predict protein
structure is to compare with known 3D
structures
Protein folds
Basic concept
In a given protein 3D structure is a more
conserved characteristic than sequence
Some aminoacids are “equivalent” to each
other
Evolutionary pressure allows only aminoacids
substitutions that keep 3D structure largely
unaltered

Two proteins of “similar” sequences must


have the “same” 3D structure
Possible scenarios
1. Homology can be recognized using sequence comparison
tools or protein family databases (blast, clustal, pfam,...).

Structural and functional predictions are feasible

2. Homology exist but cannot be recognized easily (psi-blast,


threading)

Low resolution fold predictions are possible. No functional


information.

3. No homology

1D predictions. Sequence motifs. Limited functional


prediction. Ab-initio prediction
fold prediction
3D struc. prediction
1D prediction
Prediction is based on averaging aminoacid
properties

AGGCFHIKLAAGIHLLVILVVKLGFSTRDEEASS

Average over a
window
1D prediction. Properties
Secondary structure propensitites
Hydrophobicity (transmembrane)
Accesibility
...
Propensities Chou-Fasman
Biochemistry 17, 4277 1978
Aminoacido P() P() P(turn)
Ala 1.29 0.9 0.78
Cys 1.11 0.74 0.8
Leu 1.3 1.02 0.59
Met 1.47 0.97 0.39
Glu 1.44 0.75 1 
Gln 1.27 0.8 0.97
His 1.22 1.08 0.69
Lys 1.23 0.77 0.96

Val 0.91 1.49 0.47


Ile 0.97 1.45 0.51
Phe 1.07 1.32 0.58
Tyr 0.72 1.25 1.05 
Trp 0.99 1.14 0.75
Thr 0.82 1.21 1.03

Gly 0.56 0.92 1.64


Ser 0.82 0.95 1.33
Asp
Asn
1.04
0.9
0.72
0.76
1.41
1.23 turn
Pro 0.52 0.64 1.91

Arg 0.96 0.99 0.88


Some programs ([Link])
 BCM PSSP - Baylor College of Medicine
 Prof - Cascaded Multiple Classifiers for Secondary Structure
Prediction
 GOR I (Garnier et al, 1978) [At PBIL or at SBDS]
 GOR II (Gibrat et al, 1987)
 GOR IV (Garnier et al, 1996)
 HNN - Hierarchical Neural Network method (Guermeur, 1997)
 Jpred - A consensus method for protein secondary structure
prediction at University of Dundee
 nnPredict - University of California at San Francisco (UCSF)
 PredictProtein - PHDsec, PHDacc, PHDhtm, PHDtopology,
PHDthreader, MaxHom, EvalSec from Columbia University
 PSA - BioMolecular Engineering Research Center (BMERC) / Boston
 PSIpred - Various protein structure prediction methods at Brunel
University
 SOPM (Geourjon and Deléage, 1994)
 SOPMA (Geourjon and Deléage, 1995)
 AGADIR - An algorithm to predict the helical content of peptides
1D

Prediction
Original methods: 1 sequence and uniform
parameters (25-30%)

Original improvements: Parameters specific


from protein classes

Present methods use sequence profiles


obtained from multiple alignments and neural
networks to extract parameters (70-75%, 98%
for transmembrane helix)
Methods for remote homology
Homology can be recognized using PSI-Blast

Fold prediction is possible using threading


methods

Acurate 3D prediction is not possible: No


structure-function relationship can be
inferred from models
Threading
Unknown sequence is “folded” in a number of
known structures

Scoring functions evaluate the fitting


between sequence and structure according to
statistical functions and sequence comparison
..........

10.5 > .......... 5.2

SELECTED HIT
ATTWV....PRKSCT Sequence
HHHHH....CCBBBB Pred. Sec. Struc.
eeebb....eeebeb Pred. accesibility

..........

Sequence GGTV....ATTW ........... ATTVL....FFRK


Obs SS BBBB....CCHH ........... HHHB.....CBCB
Obs Acc. EEBE.....BBEB ........... BBEBB....EBBE
Threading accurancy

0.35

% 0.3

A 0.25
C
0.2
I
E 0.15
R
T 0.1
O
S 0.05

0
5 10 15 20 25
% IDENTIDAD SECUENCIAS
Comparative modelling
Good for homology >30%

Accurancy is very high for homology > 60%

Reminder
The model must be USEFUL
Only the “interesting” regions of the protein
need to be modelled
Expected accurancy
Strongly dependent on the quality of the sequence
alignment

Strongly dependent on the identity with


“template” structures. Very good structures if
identity > 60-70%.

Quality of the model is better in the backbone than


side chains

Quality of the model is better in conserved regions


Quality test
No energy differences between a correct or
wrong model

The structure must by “chemically correct” to


use it in quantitative predictions
Analysis software
PROCHECK
WHATCHECK
Suite Biotech
PROSA
Prediction software
SwissModel (automatic)
 [Link]
SwissModel Repository
 [Link]
3D-JIGSAW ([Link])
 [Link]
Modeller ([Link])
 [Link]
MODBASE (A. Sali)
 [Link]
Final test
The model must justify experimental data (i.e.
differences between unknown sequence and
templates) and be useful to understand
function.

You might also like