Advertisement

Modelling Protein Structure from Remote Sequence Similarity: An Approach to Tertiary Structure Prediction

  • William R. Taylor

Abstract

Given some similarity in sequence between two proteins, a molecular model can be constructed for one sequence provided that the tertiary structure of the other is known. This approach, which is often called “modelling by homology”, can yield a reasonably accurate model, providing that the available sequence similarity is clear. With less similarity, useful models can still be constructed and, although these may not be accurate in detail, it is probable that the overall fold will be correct. The robust nature of the approach derives from the stability of the fold of the protein under mutational pressures. This is so conservative that, for two proteins, sequence similarity can be almost undetectable yet the overall fold can remain the same. By implication, if any reliable sequence similarity can be identified at all, then it should be possible to build, at least a rough, model with the correct fold which may well be reasonably accurate in detail in the core.

Keywords

Dynamic Program Algorithm Structure Comparison Protein Structure Data Bank Tertiary Structure Prediction Motif Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Taylor, W. R., Orengo, C. A., and Pearl, L. H. (1990). Comparison of predicted and X -ray crystal structures of retroviral proteases. In Ikehara, M., editor, Protein engineering: protein design in basic research, medicine, and industry, pages 21–27. Japan Scientific Press, Tokyo; Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Proceedings of the second international conference on protein engineering.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber, I. T. (1990). Evaluation of homology modeling of HIV preotease. Prot. Struct. Funct. Genet. 7:172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pearl, L. H. and Taylor, W. R. (1987). A structural model for the retroviral proteases. Nature, 329:351–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sali, A. and Blundell, T. L. (1990). Definition of general topological equivalence in protein structures: a procedure involving comparison of properties and relationship through simulated annealing and dynamic programming. J. Mol. Biol., 212:403–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taylor, W. R. and Orengo, C. A. (1989b). Protein structure alignment. J. Molec. Biol., 208:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith, T. F. and Waterman, M. S. (1981). Comparison of bio-sequences. Adv. Appl. Math., 2:482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor, W. R. (1988). A flexible method to align large numbers of biological sequences. J. Molec. Evol., 28:161–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murzin, A. G. and Finkelstein, A. V. (1988). General architecture of the a-helical globule. J. Mol. Biol. 204:749–769.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor, W.R. (1991) Towards protein tertiary fold prediction using distance and motif constraints. Prot. Engng. 4: 853–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor, W.R. (1993) Protein fold refinement: building models from idealised folds using motif constraints and multiple sequence data. Prot. Engng 6. 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • William R. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Mathematical BiologyNational Institute for Medical ResearchLondonUK

Personalised recommendations