Advertisement

Quality Assessment of Protein Tertiary Structures: Past, Present, and Future

  • Ankita Singh
  • Rahul Kaushik
  • B. Jayaram
Chapter

Abstract

The quality assessment of protein structures is one of the most critical steps in the regime of reliable protein tertiary structure prediction. Post-conformational sampling of the decoys for a protein sequence and the scoring functions to perform quality assessment usually dictate the overall success of protein structure prediction. The field of protein structure quality assessment has achieved a chronological success over the years in differentiating between accurately and spuriously modeled structures. Implementation of physics-based, knowledge-based, and consensus approaches has contributed immensely in pushing the field to higher levels. Recently, the addition of metaserver approaches while integrating previously known methodologies has further pushed the field of protein structure quality assessment to a more reliable zone. Here, we described some of the tools/softwares/servers which implements diverse parameters to quantify the accuracy of modeled protein structures.

Keywords

Protein structure prediction Modeled structure accuracies Error estimation Quality assessment RMSD MQAP 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Support to the Supercomputing Facility for Bioinformatics & Computational Biology (SCFBio), IIT Delhi, from the Department of Biotechnology, Govt. of India, is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Benkert P, Kuenzli M, Schwede T (2009) QMEAN server for protein model quality estimation. Nucleic Acids Res 37:W510–W514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourne PE (2003) CASP and CAFASP experiments and their findings. Methods Biochem Anal 44:501–507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ et al (1983) CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 4:187–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao R, Jianlin C (2016) Protein single-model quality assessment by feature-based probability density function. Sci Rep 6:23990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cao R, Wang Z, Wang Y, Cheng J (2014) SMOQ: a tool for predicting the absolute residue-specific quality of a single protein model with support vector machines. BMC Bioinformatics 15:120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen VB, Arendall WB 3rd, Headd JJ, Keedy DA et al (2010) MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr D66:12–21Google Scholar
  7. Cheng J (2008) A multi-template combination algorithm for protein comparative modeling. BMC Struct Biol 8:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colovos C, Yeates TO (1993) Verification of protein structures, patterns of non-bonded atomic interactions. Protein Sci 2:1511–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cozzetto D, Kryshtafovych A, Ceriani M, Tramontano A (2007) Assessment of predictions in the model quality assessment category. Proteins 69(8):175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fise A (2010) Template-based protein structure modeling. Methods Mol Biol 673:73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghosh S, Vishveshwara S (2014) Ranking the quality of protein structure models using side chain based network properties. F1000Res 3:17PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Jayaram B, Bhushan K, Shenoy SR et al (2006) Bhageerath: an energy based web enabled computer soft-ware suite for limiting the search space of tertiary structures of small globular proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 34:6195–6204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jayaram B, Dhingra P, Mishra A et al (2014) Bhageerath-H: a homology/ab initio hybrid server for predicting tertiary structures of monomeric soluble proteins. BMC Bioinformatics 15(S16):S7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jing X, Dong Q (2017) MQAPRank: improved global protein model quality assessment by learning-to-rank. BMC Bioinformatics 18:275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaushik R, Jayaram B (2016) Structural difficulty index: a reliable measure for modelability of protein tertiary structures. Protein Eng Des Sel 29(9):391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kryshtafovych A, Fidelis K (2009) Protein structure prediction and model quality assessment. Drug Discov Today 14:386–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laskowski RA (1993) PROCHECK: a program to check the stereo chemical quality of protein structures. J Appl Crystallogr 26:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee B, Richards FM (1971) The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol 55:379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luthy R, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D (1992) Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Nature 356:83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGuffin L, Roche D (2010) Rapid model quality assessment for protein structure predictions using the comparison of multiple models without structural alignments. Bioinformatics 26:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Melo F, Feytmans E (1998) Assessing protein structures with non-local atomic interaction energy. J Mol Biol 17:1141–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Melo F, Sali A (2007) Fold assessment for comparative protein structure modeling. Protein Sci 16:2412–2426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mishra A, Rao S, Mittal A, Jayaram B (2013) Capturing native/native like structures with a Physico-chemical metric (pcSM) in protein folding. Biochim Biophys Acta 1834:1520–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mishra A, Rana PS, Mittal A, Jayaram B (2014) D2N: distance to the native. Biochim Biophys Acta 10:1798–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Narang P, Bhushan K, Bose S, Jayaram B (2005) A computational pathway for bracketing native-like structures for small alpha helical globular proteins. Phys Chem Chem Phys 7:2364–2375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olechnovic K, Venclovas C (2017) VoroMQA: assessment of protein structure quality using interatomic contact areas. Proteins 85:1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pawlowski M, Gajda MJ, Matlak R, Bujnicki JM (2008) MetaMQAP: a meta-server for the quality assessment of protein models. BMC Bioinformatics 9:403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pearlman DA, Case DA, Caldwell JW, Ross WS et al (1995) AMBER 4.1. University of San Francisco, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  29. Samudrala R, Levitt M (2000) Decoys ‘R’ Us: a database of incorrect protein conformations to improve protein structure prediction. Protein Sci 9:1399–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shen M, Sali A (2006) Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci 15:2507–2524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh A, Kaushik R, Mishra A, Shanker A, Jayaram B (2015) ProTSAV: a protein tertiary structure analysis and validation server. Biochim Biophys Acta 1864:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sippl MJ (1995) Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 5:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Soares TA, Hünenberger PH, Kastenholz MA, Kräutle V et al (2005) An improved nucleic acid parameter set for the GROMOS force field. J Comput Chem 26:725–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Venclovas C, Zemla A, Fidelis K, Moult J (2003) Assessment of progress over the CASP experiments. Proteins 53:585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallner B, Elofsson A (2003) Can correct protein models be identified? Protein Sci 12:1073–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang Q, Shang Y, Xu D (2011) Improving a consensus approach for protein structure selection by removing redundancy. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 8:1708–1715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wiederstein M, Sippl MJ (2007) ProSA-web: interactive web service for the recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Nucl Acids Res 35:W407–W410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang Y, Zhou Y (2008) Specific interactions for ab initio folding of protein terminal regions with secondary structures. Proteins 72:793–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zemla A, Venclovas C, Fidelis K, Moult J (2001) Processing and evaluation of predictions in CASP4. Proteins 5:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang Y, Skolnick J (2004) Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins 57:702–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Supercomputing Facility for Bioinformatics & Computational BiologyIIT DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Bioscience and BiotechnologyBanasthali VidyapithRajasthanIndia
  3. 3.Kusuma School of Biological SciencesIndian Institute of TechnologyNew DelhiIndia
  4. 4.Department of ChemistryIndian Institute of TechnologyNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations