Contact Potential for Global Identification of Correct Protein Folding

  • Gordon M. Crippen
  • Vladimir N. Maiorov


The classical protein folding problem is to predict the three-dimensional (3D) conformation of a protein given only its amino acid sequence. In the thermodynamic approach one attempts to simulate this by choosing some kind of potential function of conformation and then searching for the conformation(s) having the global minimum of this function. There are two interrelated problems that need to be solved in order to ensure the calculations are feasible and to get correct answers: How to represent conformations, and how to construct the function? The standard approach to computational conformational analysis, molecular mechanics, represents each atom in the molecule as a point in 3D space, so that atoms can move in a continuous fashion by smoothly changing their x, y, and z coordinates. Sometimes the atomic Cartesian coordinates are calculated from specified internal coordinates (bond lengths, bond angles, and torsion angles), but in any case conformational movements are smooth and continuous. Potential functions of conformation are generally chosen as long sums of two-, three-, and four-atom interactions, where each term is a continuous function of atomic coordinates, often having some physical significance. The adjustable parameters within these terms are subsequently varied so as to reproduce some selection of experimentally observed conformations, crystal structures, known bond-rotation barriers, enthalpies of sublimation, vibrational frequencies, etc.


Native Conformation Reference Structure Contact Potential Contact Function Residue Type 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abola EE, Bernstein FC, Bryant SH, Koetzle TF, Weng J (1987): Protein data bank. In Crystallographic Databases — Information Content, Software Systems, Scientific Applications (Allen FN, Bergerhoff G, Sievers R, eds.). pp. 107–132, Data Commission of the International Union of Crystallography, Bonn-Cambridge-ChesterGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake CCF, Pulford WCA, Artymiuk PJ (1983): X-ray studies of water in crystals of lysozome. J Mol Biol 167:693–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryant SH, Amzel LM (1987): Correctly folded proteins make twice as many hydrophobic contacts. Int J Peptide Prot Res 29:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiche L, Gaboriaud C, Heitz A, Mornon JP, Castro C, Kollman PA (1989): Use of restrained molecular dynamics in water to determine three-dimensional protein structure: Prediction of the three-dimensional structure of Ecballium elaterium trypsin inhibitor II. Proteins 6:405–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiche L, Grigoret LM, Cohen FE, Kollman PA (1990): Protein model structure evaluation using the solvation free energy of folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:3240–3243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chothia C (1992): One thousand protein families for the molecular biologist. Nature 357:543–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corfield PWR, Lee TJ, Low BW (1989): The crystal structure of erabutoxin A at 2.0 Å resolution. J Biol Chem. 264:9239–9242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Covell DG, Jernigan RL (1990): Conformations of folded proteins in restricted spaces. Biochemistry 29:3287–3294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crippen GM (1975): Global optimization and Polypeptide conformation. J Comput. Chem 18:224–231Google Scholar
  10. Crippen GM (1991): Prediction of protein folding from amino acid sequence over discrete conformation spaces. Biochemistry 30:4232–4237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crippen GM, Snow ME (1990): A 1.8 Å resolution potential function for protein folding. Biopolymers 29:1479–1489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damaschun G, Mueller JJ, Puerschel HV, Sommer G (1969): Berechnung der Form kolloider Teilchen aus Röntgen-Kleinwinkeldiagrammen. Monatshefte für Chemie 100:1701–1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond R (1974): Real-space refinement of the structure of hen egg-white lysozome. J Mol Biol 82:371–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenberg D, McLachlan AD (1986): Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature 319:199–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Furey W, Wang BC, Yoo CS, Sax M (1983): Structure of a novel Bence-Jones protein (Rhe) fragment at 1.6 Å resolution. J Mol Biol 167:661–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hendlich M, Lackner P, Weitckus S, Floeckner H, Froschauer R, Gottsbacher K, Casari G, Sippl MJ (1990): Identification of native protein folds amongst a large number of incorrect models. J Mol Biol 216:167–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM (1992): A new approach to protein fold recognition. Nature 358:86–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jurs PC (1986): Computer Software Applications in Chemistry. New York: John Wiley, pp. 198–199Google Scholar
  19. Kline TP, Brown FK, Brown SC, Jeffs PW, Kopple KD, Mueller L (1990): Solution structures of human transforming growth factor α derived from 1H NMR data. Biochemistry 29:7805–7813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lau KF, Dill KA (1989): A lattice statistical mechanics model of the conformational and sequence spaces of proteins. Macromolecules 22:3986–3997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levitt M (1976): A simplified representation of protein conformations for rapid simulation of protein folding. J Mol Biol 104:59–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luethy R, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D (1992): Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Nature 356:83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maiorov VN, Crippen GM (1992): Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. J Mol Biol 227:876–888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marquait M, Deisenhofer J, Huber R, Palm W (1980): Crystallographic refinement and atomic models of the intact immunoglobulin molecule Kol and its antigenbinding fragment at 3.0 Å and 1.9 Å resolution. J Mol Biol 141:369–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marquait M, Walter J, Deisenhofer J, Bode W, Huber R (1983): The geometry of the reactive site and of the peptide groups in trypsin, trypsinogen and its complexes with inhibitors. Acta Crytallogr B39:480–482Google Scholar
  26. Matsuura Y, Takano T, Dickerson RE (1982): Structure of cytochrome c 551 from Pseudomonas. Aeruginosa refined at 1.6 Å resolution and comparison of the two redox forms. J Mol Biol 156:389–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McLachlan AD (1979): Gene duplications in the structural evolution of chymotrypsin. J Mol Biol 128:49–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michnick SW, Rosen MK, Wandless TJ, Karplus M, Schreiber SL (1991): Solution structure of FKBP, a rotamase enzyme and receptor for FK506 and rapamycin. Science 252:836–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL (1985): Estimation of interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: Quasi-chemical approximation. Macromolecules 18: 534–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nishikawa K, Ooi T (1972): Tertiary structure of protein. II. Freedom of dihedral angles and energy calculations. J Phys Soc Japan 32:1338–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Novotny J, Bruccoleri R, Karplus M (1984): An analysis of incorrectly folded protein models. J Mol Biol 177:787–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Novotny J, Rashin AA, Bruccoleri RE (1988): Criteria that discriminate between native proteins and incorrectly folded models. Proteins: Struct, Funct, Genet 4:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ochi H, Hata Y, Tanaka N, Kakudo M, Sakurai T, Aihara S, Morita Y (1983): Structure of rice ferricytochrome c at 2.0 Å resolution. J Mol Biol 166:407–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pastore A, Atkinson RA, Saudek V, Williams RJP (1991): Topological mirror images in protein structure computation: An underestimated problem. Proteins 10:22–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryu SE, Kwong PD, Truneh A, Porter TG, Arthos J, Rosenberg M, Dai X, Xuong NH, Axel R, Sweet RW, Hendrickson WA (1990): Crystal structure of an HIV-binding fragment of human CD4. Nature 348:419–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seetharamulu P, Crippen GM (1991): A potential function for protein folding. J Math Chem 6:91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sippl MJ (1990): Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. J Mol Biol 213:859–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith JL, Corfield PWR, Hendrickson WA, Low BW (1988): Refinement at 1.4 Å resolution of a model of erabutoxin B. Treatment of ordered solvent and discrete disorder. Acta Crystallogr. A44:357–359Google Scholar
  39. Takano T, Dickerson RE (1981): Conformation change of cytochrome C. I. Ferrocytochrome C structure refined at 1.5 Å resolution. J Mol Biol 153:79–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsernoglou D, Petsko GA, Hudson RA (1978): Structure and function of snake venom curarimimetic neurotoxins. Mol Pharmacol 14:710–721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. van Duyne GD, Standaert RF, Karplus PA, Schreiber SL, Clardy J (1991): Atomic structure of FKBP-FK506, an immunophilin-immunosuppressant complex. Science 252:839–842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weber IT, Miller M, Jaskolski M, Leis J, Skalka AM, Wlodawer A (1989): Molecular modeling of the HIV-1 protease and its substrate binding site. Science 243:928–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wlodawer A, Walter J, Huber R, Sjolin L (1984): Structure of bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor. Results of joint neutron and X-ray refinement of crystal form II. J Mol Biol 180:301–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright CS (1990): 2.2 Å resolution structure analysis of two refined N-acetylneuraminyllactose wheat germ agglutinin isolectin complexes. J Mol Biol 215:635–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Boston 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon M. Crippen
  • Vladimir N. Maiorov

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations