A Graph Theoretic Approach to Protein Structure Selection

  • Marco Vassura
  • Luciano Margara
  • Piero Fariselli
  • Rita Casadio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4578)


Protein Structure Prediction (PSP) aims to reconstruct the 3D structure of a given protein starting from its primary structure (chain of amino acids). It is a well known fact that the 3D structure of a protein only depends on its primary structure. PSP is one of the most important and still unsolved problems in computational biology. Protein Structure Selection (PSS), instead of reconstructing a 3D model for the given chain, aims to select among a given, possibly large, number of 3D structures (called decoys) those that are closer (according to a given notion of distance) to the original (unknown) one. Each decoy is represented by a set of points in ℝ3. Existing methods for solving PSS make use of suitably defined energy functions which heavily rely on the primary structure of the protein and on protein chemistry. In this paper we present a completely different approach to PSS which does not take advantage at all of the knowledge of the primary structure of the protein but only relies on the graph theoretic properties of the decoys graphs (vertices represent amino acids and edges represent pairs of amino acids whose euclidean distance is less than or equal to a fixed threshold). Even if our methods only rely on approximate geometric information, experimental results show that some of the graph properties we adopt score similarly to energy-based filtering functions in selecting the best decoys. Our results show the principal role of geometric information in PSS, setting a new starting point and filtering method, for existing energy function-based techniques.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Biggs, N.: Algebraic graph theory. Cambridge University Press-VIII, Cambridge (1974)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonneau, R., Tsai, J., Ruczinski, I., Chivian, D., Rohl, C., Strauss, C.E., Baker, D.: Rosetta in CASP4: progress in ab initio protein structure prediction. Proteins 45(Suppl 5), 119–126 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cherkassky, B.V., Goldberg, A.V.: On Implementing Push-Relabel Method for the Maximum Flow Problem. In: Proc. IPCO-4, pp. 157–171 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C.: Introduction to algorithms. The MIT Press, London (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fariselli, P., Casadio, R.: A neural network based predictor of residue contacts in proteins. Protein Eng. 12, 15–21 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Felts, A.K., Gallicchio, E., Wallqvist, A., Levy, R.M.: Distinguishing native conformations of proteins from decoys with an effective free energyestimator based on the OPLS all-atom force field and the Surface Generalized Born solvent model. Proteins 48, 404–422 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finkelstein, A.V.: Protein structure: what is it possible to predict now? Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 7, 60–71 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galassi, M., Davies, J., Theiler, J., Gough, B., Jungman, G., Booth, M., Rossi, F.: GNU Scientific Library Reference Manual - Revised 2nd edn. (2006) ISBN 0954161734Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hardin, C., Pogorelov, T.V., Luthey-Schulten, Z.: Ab initio protein structure prediction. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12, 176–181 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park, B.H., Huang, E.S., Levitt, M.: Factors affecting the ability of energy functions to discriminate correct from incorrect folds. J. Mol. Biol. 2664, 831–846 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plaxco, K.W., Simons, K.T., Baker, D.: Contact order, transition state placement and the refolding rates of single domain proteins. J. Mol. Bio. 277, 985–994 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Samudrala, R., Moult, J.: An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 275, 895–916 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siew, N., Elofsson, A., Rychlewski, L., Fischer, D.: MaxSub: An automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality. Bioinformatics 16, 776–785 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tosatto, S.C.E.: The Victor/FRST Function for Model Quality Estimation. J. Comp. Biol., 12, 1316–1327 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsai, J., Bonneau, R., Morozov, A.V., Kuhlman, B., Rohl, C.A., Baker, D.: An improved protein decoy set for testing energy functions for protein structure prediction. Proteins 53, 76–87 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vendruscolo, M., Dokholyan, N. V., Paci, E., Karplus, M.: Physycal review E, vol. 65(6 Pt 1):061910 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Vassura
    • 1
  • Luciano Margara
    • 1
  • Piero Fariselli
    • 2
  • Rita Casadio
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science Department, University of BolognaItaly
  2. 2.Biocomputing Group, Department of Biology, University of BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations