Comparison of Common Homology Modeling Algorithms: Application of User-Defined Alignments

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 857)


The number of known three-dimensional protein sequences is orders of magnitude higher than the number of known protein structures. This is a result of an increase in large-scale genomic sequencing projects, the inability of proteins to crystallize or crystals to diffract well, or a simple lack of resources. An alternative is to use one of a variety of available homology modeling programs to produce a computational model of a protein. Protein models are produced using information from known protein structures found to be similar. Here, we compare the ability of a number of popular homology modeling programs to produce quality models from user-defined target–template sequence alignments over a range of circumstances including low sequence identity, variable sequence length, and when interfaced with a protein or small molecule. Programs evaluated include Prime, SWISS-MODEL, MOE, MODELLER, ROSETTA, Composer, ORCHESTRAR, and I-TASSER. Proteins to be modeled were chosen to test a range of sequence identities, sequence lengths, and protein motifs and all are of scientific importance. These include HIV-1 protease, kinases, dihydrofolate reductase, a viral capsid protein, and factor Xa among others. For the most part, the programs produce results that are similar. For example, all programs are able to produce reasonable models when sequence identities are >30% and all programs have difficulties producing complete models when sequence identities are lower. However, certain programs fare slightly better than others in certain situations and we attempt to provide insight on this topic.

Key words

Homology modeling Comparative modeling Sequence alignments Protein modeling software Loop modeling 


  1. 1.
    Evers A and Klebe G (2004) Successful virtual screening for a submicromolar antagonist of the neurokinin-1 receptor base on a ligand-supported homology model. J Med Chem 47:5381–5392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evers A and Klabunde T (2005) Structure-based drug discovery using GPCR homology modeling: Successful virtual screening for antagonists of the alpha1A androgenic receptor. J Med Chem 48:1088–1097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rasmussen SG, Choi HJ, Rosenbaum DM, Kobilka TS, Thian FS, Edwards PC, Burghammer M, Ratnala VR, Sanishvili R, Fischetti RF, Schertler GF, Weis WI, and Kobilka BK (2007) Crystal structure of the human β2-adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 450:383–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cherezov V, Rosenbaum DM, Hanson MA, Rasmussen SG, Thian FS, Kobilka TS, Choi HJ, Kuhn P, Weis WI, Kobilka BK, and Stevens RC (2007) High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human β2-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor. Science 318:1258–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenbaum DM, Cherezov V, Hanson MA, Rasmussen SG, Thian FS, Kobilka TS, Choi HJ, Yao XJ, Weis WI, Stevens RC and Kobilka BK (2007) GPCR engineering yields high-resolution structural insights into β2-adrenergic receptor function. Science 318 (5854):1266–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu CH, Apweiler R, Bairoch A, Natale DA et al (2006) The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt): An expanding universe of protein information. Nucl Acids Res 34:Database issue D187-D191Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwede T, Kopp J, Guex N, and Peitsch MC (2003) SWISS-MODEL: An automated protein homology-modeling server. Nucl Acids Res 31:3381–3385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sippl MJ and Weitckus S (1992) Detection of native-like models for amino acid sequences of unknown three-dimensional structure in a database of known protein conformations. Proteins 13:258–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abagyan RA, Totrov MM, and Kuznetsov DA (1994) ICM: a new method for protein modeling and design: applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. J Comp Chem 15:488–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Misura KM, Chivian D, Rohl CA, Kim DE, Baker D (2006) Physically realistic homology models built with ROSETTA can be more accurate than their templates. PNAS 103(14):5361–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sali A and Blundell TL (1993) Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol 234:779–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montalvao RW, Smith RE, Lovell SC and Blundell TL (2005) CHORAL: A differential geometry approach to the prediction of the cores of protein structures. Bioinformatics 21:37193725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith RE, Lovell SC, Burke DF, Montalvao RW and Blundell TL (2007) Andante: reducing side-chain rotamer search space during comparative modeling using environment-specific substitution probabilities. Bioinformatics 23:1099–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deane CM and Blundell TL (2001) CODA: A combined algorithm for predicting the structurally variable regions of protein models. Protein Sci 10:599–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sali A and Blundell TL (1990) Definition of general topological equivalence in protein structures. A procedure involving comparison of properties and relationships through simulated annealing and dynamic programming. J Mol Biol 212:403–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu ZY, Sali A and Blundell TL (1992) A variable gap penalty function and feature weights for protein 3-D structure comparisons. Protein Eng 5:43–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sutcliffe MJ, Haneef I, Carney D, Blundell TL (1987a) Knowledge-based modeling of homologous proteins, Part 1: Three-dimensional frameworks derived from the simultaneous superposition of multiple structures. Protein Eng 1:377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sutcliffe MJ, Hayes FR, Blundell TL (1987b) Knowledge-based modeling of homologous proteins, Part 2: Rules for the conformations of substituted sidechains. Protein Eng. 1:385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levitt M (1992) Accurate modeling of protein conformation by automatic segment matching. J Mol Biol 226:507–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MOE. Chemical Computing Group, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prime. Schrödinger, LLC, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tramontano A, Cozzetto D, Giorgetti A, Raimondo D (2007) The assessment of methods for protein structure prediction. Methods Mol Biol 413:43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nayeem A, Sitkoff D, Krystek S (2006) A comparative study of available software for high-accuracy homology modeling: from sequence alignments to structural models. Protein Sci 15:808–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wallner B, Elofsson A (2005) All are not equal: A benchmark of different homology modeling programs. Protein Sci 14:1315–1327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dolan MA, Keil M, Baker DS (2008) Comparison of Composer and ORCHESTRAR. Proteins 72:1243–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS and Tirado-Rives J (1996) Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 118:11225–11236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaminski GA, Friesner RA, Tirado-Rives J and Jorgensen WL (2001) Evaluation and reparametrization of the OPLS-AA force field for proteins via comparison with accurate quantum chemical calculations on peptides. J Phys Chem B 105:6474–6487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gallicchio E, Zhang LY and Levy RM (2002) The SGB/NP hydration free energy model based on the surface generalized born solvent reaction field and novel nonpolar hydration free energy estimators. J Comp Chem 23:517–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jacobson MP, Pincus DL, Rapp CS, Day TJF, Honig B, Shaw DE, Friesner RA (2004) A hierarchical approach to all-atom protein loop prediction Proteins 55:351–367Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fechteler T, Dengler U, and Schomburg D (1995) Prediction of protein three-dimensional structures in insertion and deletion regions: A procedure for searching data bases of representative protein fragments using geometric scoring criteria. J Mol Biol 253:114–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peitsch MC (1996) ProMod and Swiss-Model: Internet-based tools for automated comparative protein modeling. Biochem Soc Trans 24(1):274–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Gunsteren WF, Billeter SR, Eising AA, Hünenberger PH, Krüger P, Mark AE, Scott WRP, and Tironi IG (1996) Biomolecular Simulation: The GROMOS96 Manual and User Guide, pp. 1–1042. Vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich, Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shen M-y, Sali A (2006) Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Science 15:2507–2524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eramian D, Shen M-y, Devos D, Melo F, Sali A and Marti-Renom MA (2006) A composite score for predicting errors in protein structure models. Protein Science 15:1653–1666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roy A, Kucukural A, Zhang Y (2010) I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nature Protocols 5:725–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, and Bourne PE (2000) The Protein Data Bank. Nucl Acids Res 28:235–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W and Lipman DJ (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucl Acids Res 25:3389–3402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shi J, Blundell TL, and Mizuguchi K (2001) FUGUE: Sequence-structure homology recognition using environment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. J Mol Biol 310:243–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Bakker PIW, Bateman A, Burke DF, Miguel RN, Mizuguchi K, Shi J, Shirai H, and Blundell TL (2001) HOMSTRAD: Adding sequence information to structure-based alignments of homologous protein families. Bioinformatics 17:748–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mizuguchi K, Deane C, Blundell T, and Overington J (1998) HOMSTRAD: A database of protein structure alignments for homologous families. Protein Sci 7:2469–2471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sherman W, Day T, Jacobson MP, Friesner RA, Farid R (2006) Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J Med Chem 49:534–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media,LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Dolan
    • 1
  • James W. Noah
    • 2
  • Darrell Hurt
    • 1
  1. 1.Bioinformatics and Computational Biosciences BranchNational Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Southern Research InstituteBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations