An Upper Bound for Number of Contacts in the HP-Model on the Face-Centered-Cubic Lattice (FCC)

  • Rolf Backofen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1848)


Lattice protein models are a major tool for investigating principles of protein folding. For this purpose, one needs an algorithm that is guaranteed to find the minimal energy conformation in some lattice model (at least for some sequences). So far, there are only algorithm that can find optimal conformations in the cubic lattice. In the more interesting case of the face-centered-cubic lattice (FCC), which is more protein-like, there are no results. One of the reasons is that for finding optimal conformations, one usually applies a branch-and-bound technique, and there are no reasonable bounds known for the FCC. We will give such a bound for Dill’s HP-model on the FCC.


Layer Contact Protein Structure Prediction Colored Point Connected Plane Generalize Contact 
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. 1.
    Richa Agarwala, Serafim Batzoglou, Vlado Dancik, Scott E. Decatur, Martin Farach, Sridhar Hannenhalli, S. Muthukrishnan, and Steven Skiena. Local rules for protein folding on a triangular lattice and generalized hydrophobicity in the hp model. Journal of Computational Biology, 4(2):275–296, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rolf Backofen. Constraint techniques for solving the protein structure prediction problem. In Michael Maher and Jean-Francois Puget, editors, Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Principle and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’98), volume 1520 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 72–86. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rolf Backofen. Optimization Techniques for the Protein Structure Prediction Problem. Habilitationsschrift, University of Munich, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Berger and T. Leighton. Protein folding in the hydrophobic-hydrophilic (HP) modell is NP-complete. In Proc. of the Second Annual International Conferences on Compututational Molecular Biology (RECOMB98), pages 30–39, New York, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Crescenzi, D. Goldman, C. Papadimitriou, A. Piccolboni, and M. Yannakakis. On the complexity of protein folding. In Proc. of STOC, 1998. To appear. Short version in Proc. of RECOMB’98, pages 61–62.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    William E. Hart and Sorin C. Istrail. Fast protein folding in the hydrophobid-hydrophilic model within three-eighths of optimal. Journal of Computational Biology, 3(1):53–96, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kit Fun Lau and Ken A. Dill. A lattice statistical mechanics model of the conformational and sequence spaces of proteins. Macromolecules, 22:3986–3997, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaizhi Yue and Ken A. Dill. Forces of tertiary structural organization in globular proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 92:146–150, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolf Backofen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikLMU MünchenMünchen

Personalised recommendations