Paper detail

Optimizing weights of protein energy function to improve ab initio protein structure prediction

Predicting protein 3D structure from amino acid sequence remains as a challenge in the field of computational biology. If protein structure homologues are not found, one has to construct 3D structural conformations from the very beginning by the so-called ab initio approach, using some empirical energy functions. A successful algorithm in this category, Rosetta, creates an ensemble of decoy conformations by assembling selected best short fragments of known protein structures and then recognizes the native state as the highly populated one with a very low energy. Typically, an energy function is a combination of a variety of terms characterizing different structural features, say hydrophobic interactions, van der Waals force, hydrogen bonding, etc. It is critical for an energy function to be capable to distinguish native-like conformations from non-native ones and to drive most initial conformations assembled from fragments to a native-like one in a conformation search process. In this paper we propose a linear programming algorithm to optimize weighting of a total of 14 energy terms used in Rosetta. We reverse the Monte Carlo process of Rosetta to approach native-like conformations to a process generating from the native state an ensemble of initial conformations most relevant to the native state. Intuitively, an ideal weighting scheme would result in a large "basin of attraction" of the native structure, which leads to an objective function for the linear programming. We have examined the proposal on several benchmark proteins, and the experimental results suggest that the optimized weights enlarge the attraction basin of the native state and improve the quality of the predicted native states as well. In addition, a comparison of optimal weighting schema for proteins of different classes indicates that in different protein classes energy terms may have different effects.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.