Multimeme Algorithms for Protein Structure Prediction

  • N. Krasnogor
  • B. P. Blackburne
  • E. K. Burke
  • J. D. Hirst
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2439)


Despite intensive studies during the last 30 years researchers are yet far from the “holy grail” of blind structure prediction of the three dimensional native state of a protein from its sequence of amino acids. We introduce here a Multimeme Algorithm which is robust across a range of protein structure models and instances. New benchmark sequences for the triangular lattice in the HP model and Functional Model Proteins in two and three dimensions are included here with their known optima. As there is no favourite protein model nor exact energy potentials to describe proteins, robustness accross a range of models must be present in any putative structure prediction algorithm. We demonstrate in this paper that while our algorithm present this feature it remains, in terms of cost, competitive with other techniques.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    U. Bastolla, H. Frauenkron, E. Gerstner, P. Grassberger, and W. Nadler. Testing a new monte carlo algorithm for protein folding. Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics, 32,52, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Berger and T. Leight. Protein folding in the hydrophobic-hydrophilic (HP) model is NP-complete. In Proceedings of The Second Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology, RECOMB 98, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B.P. Blackburne and J.D. Hirst. Evolution of functional model proteins. Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(4):1935–1942, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Derrida. Random energy model: Limit of a family of disordered models. Physical Review Letters, 45, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ken A. Dill. Theory for the folding and stability of globular proteins. Biochemistry, 24:1501, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.L. Patton et al. A standard ga approach to native protein conformation prediction. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 574–581. Morgan Kauffman, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Feig and C.L. Brooks III. Multiscale modeling protocol for ab initio structure prediction. In press, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.W. Greenwood, B. Lee, J. Shin, and G.B. Fogel. A survey of recent work on evolutionary approaches to the protein folding problem. In Proceedings of the Congress of Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pages 488–495. IEEE, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    J.D. Hirst. The evolutionary landscape of functional model proteins. Protein Engineering, 12:721–726, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Khimasia and P. Coveney. Protein structure prediction as a hard optimization problem: The genetic algorithm approach. In Molecular Simulation, volume 19, pages 205–226, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Kolinski, M.R. Betancourt, D. Kihara, P. Rotkiewicz, and J. Skolnick. Generalized comparative modeling (genecomp): A combination of sequence comparison, threading, and lattice modeling for protein structure prediction and refinement. PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 44:133–149, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Krasnogor. Standard hp and functional model proteins instances., 2001.
  14. 14.
    N. Krasnogor. Studies on the Theory and Design Space of Memetic Algorithms. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Computing, Mathematics and Engineering, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Krasnogor, W.E. Hart, J. Smith, and D.A. Pelta. Protein structure prediction with evolutionary algorithms. In W. Banzhaf, J. Daida, A.E. Eiben, M.H. Garzon, V. Honavar, M. Jakaiela, and R.E. Smith, editors, GECCO-99: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. Morgan Kaufman, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Krasnogor and J.E. Smith. Emergence of pro.table search strategies based on a simple inheritance mechanism. In Proceedings of the 2001 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Liang and W.H. Wong. Evolutionary monte carlo for protein folding simulations. Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(7):3374–3380, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Montanari, A. Colosimo, and P. Sirabella. The application of a genetic algorithm to the protein folding problem. In Proceedings of Engineering of Intelligent Systems (EIS 98), 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Unger and J. Moult. Genetic algorithms for protein folding simulations. Journal of Molecular Biology, 231(1):75–81, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y. Xia, E.S. Huang, M. Levitt, and R. Samudrala. Ab initio construction of protein tertiary structures using a hierarchical approach. Journal of Molecular Biology, 300:171–185, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Zemla, C. Venclovas, J. Moult, and K. Fidelis. Processing and analysis of casp3 protein structure predictions. PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Genetics Suppl, 3:22–29, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Krasnogor
    • 1
  • B. P. Blackburne
    • 1
  • E. K. Burke
    • 1
  • J. D. Hirst
    • 1
  1. 1.Automated SchedulingOptimization and Planning Group and Computational Biophysics and Chemistry Group University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations