Evolutionary Algorithms for the Inverse Protein Folding Problem
Protein structure prediction is an essential step in understanding the molecular mechanisms of living cells with widespread application in biotechnology and health. The inverse folding problem (IFP) of finding sequences that fold into a defined structure is in itself an important research problem at the heart of rational protein design. In this chapter, a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) using the diversity-as-objective (DAO) variant of multi-objectivization is presented, which optimizes the secondary structure similarity and the sequence diversity at the same time and hence searches deeper in the sequence solution space. To validate the final optimization results, a subset of the best sequences was selected for tertiary structure prediction. Comparing secondary structure annotation and tertiary structure of the predicted model to the original protein structure demonstrates that relying on fast approximation during the optimization process permits to obtain meaningful sequences.
KeywordsGenetic algorithm Diversity preservation Inverse folding problem
Work was funded by the National Research Fund of Luxembourg (FNR) as part of the EVOPERF project at the University of Luxembourg with the AFR contract no. 1356145. Experiments were carried out using the HPC facility of the University of Luxembourg .
- 2.Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2002) Molecular biology of the cell. Garland Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 5.Bowie JU, Lüthy R, Eisenberg D (1991) A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science (New York, N.Y.) 253(5016):164–170Google Scholar
- 8.De Jong AK (1975) Analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dissertation Abstracts International 36(10):5140B, University Microfilms Number 76–9381Google Scholar
- 9.Deb K, Saha A (2010) Finding multiple solutions for multimodal optimization problems using a multi-objective evolutionary approach. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 447–454Google Scholar
- 13.Goldberg DE, Richardson J (1987) Genetic algorithms with sharing for multimodal function optimization. In: Grefenstette JJ (ed) Genetic algorithms and their applications: proceedings of the second international conference on genetic algorithms. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 41–49Google Scholar
- 19.Klein F, Mouquet H, Dosenovic P, Scheid JF, Scharf L, Nussenzweig CM (2013) Antibodies in HIV-1 vaccine development and therapy. Science (New York, N.Y.) 341(6151):1199–204Google Scholar
- 22.Laredo JLJ, Nielsen SS, Danoy G, Bouvry P, Fernandes CM (2014) Cooperative selection: improving tournament selection via altruism. Accepted for publication in EvoCOP14 – 14th European conference on evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimisationGoogle Scholar
- 24.Pabo C (1983) Molecular technology. Designing proteins and peptides. Nature 301(5897):200Google Scholar
- 27.Shimodaira H (1997) Dcga: a diversity control oriented genetic algorithm. In: ICTAI, pp 367–374Google Scholar
- 28.Smadbeck J, Peterson MB, Khoury GA, Taylor MS, Floudas CA (2013) Protein wisdom: a workbench for in silico de novo design of biomolecules. J Vis Exp n77:50476Google Scholar
- 31.Varrette S, Bouvry P, Cartiaux H, Georgatos F (2014) Management of an academic HPC cluster: the UL experience. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on high performance computing & simulation (HPCS 2014), BolognaGoogle Scholar
- 34.Wessing S, Preuss M, Rudolph G (2013) Niching by multiobjectivization with neighbor information: trade-offs and benefits. In: 2013 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 103–110Google Scholar