Fast, Constraint-Based Threading of HP-Sequences to Hydrophobic Cores

  • Rolf Backofen
  • Sebastian Will
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2239)


Lattice protein models are used for hierarchical approaches to protein structure prediction, as well as for investigating principles of protein folding. So far, one has the problem that there exists no lattice that can model real protein conformations with good quality and for which an efficient method to find native conformations is known.

We present the first method for the FCC-HP-Model [3] that is capable of finding native conformations for real-sized HP-sequences. It has been shown [23] that the FCC lattice can model real protein conformations with coordinate root mean square deviation below 2 Å.

Our method uses a constraint-based approach. It works by first calculating maximally compact sets of points (hydrophobic cores), and then threading the given HP-sequence to the hydrophobic cores such that the core is occupied by H-monomers.


Hydrophobic Core Native Conformation Protein Structure Prediction Path Constraint Structure Prediction Problem 
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.
    V. I. Abkevich, A. M. Gutin, and E. I. Shakhnovich. Impact of local and nonlocal interactions on thermodynamics and kinetics of protein folding. Journal of Molecular Biology, 252:460–471, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    V.I. Abkevich, A.M. Gutin, and E.I. Shakhnovich. Computer simulations of prebiotic evolution. In Russ B. Altman, A. Keith Dunker, Lawrence Hunter, and Teri E. Klein, editors, PSB’97, pages 27–38, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rolf Backofen. Constraint techniques for solving the protein structure prediction problem. In Michael Maher and Jean-Francois Puget, editors, Proceedings of 4 th 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
  5. 5.
    Rolf Backofen. An upper bound for number of contacts in the HP-model on the face-centered-cubic lattice (FCC). In Raffaele Giancarlo and David Sanko., editors, Proc. of the 11th Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching (CPM2000), volume 1848 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 277–292, Berlin, 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rolf Backofen and Sebastian Will. Optimally compact finite sphere packings — hydrophobic cores in the FCC. In Amihood Amir and Gad Landau, editors, Proc. of the 12th Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching (CPM2001), volume 2089 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 257–271, Berlin, 2001. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rolf Backofen, Sebastian Will, and Erich Bornberg-Bauer.Application of constraint programming techniques for structure prediction of lattice proteins with extended alphabets. J. Bioinformatics, 15(3):234–242, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rolf Backofen, Sebastian Will, and Peter Clote. Algorithmic approach to quantifying the hydrophobic force contribution in protein folding. In Russ B. Altman, A. Keith Dunker, Lawrence Hunter, and Teri E. Klein, editors, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB 2000), volume 5, pages 92–103, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U Bastolla, H Frauenkron, E Gerstner, P Grassberger, and W Nadler. Testing a new monte carlo algorithm for protein folding. Proteins, 32(1):52–66, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Erich Bornberg-Bauer. Chain growth algorithms for HP-type lattice proteins. In Proc. of the 1 st Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology (RECOMB), pages 47–55. ACM Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Crescenzi, D. Goldman, C. Papadimitriou, A. Piccolboni, and M. Yannakakis. On the complexity of protein folding. In Proc. of STOC, pages 597–603, 1998. Short version in Proc. of RECOMB’98, pages 61-62.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K.A. Dill, S. Bromberg, K. Yue, K.M. Fiebig, D.P. Yee, P.D. Thomas, and H.S. Chan. Principles of protein folding-a perspective of simple exact models. Protein Science, 4:561–602, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ken A. Dill, Klaus M. Fiebig, and Hue Sun Chan. Cooperativity in protein-folding kinetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 90:1942–1946, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aaron R. Dinner, Andreaj Šali, and Martin Karplus. The folding mechanism of larger model proteins: Role of native structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93:8356–8361, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eugene C. Freuder. A sufficient condition for backtrack-free search. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 29(1):24–32, 1982.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Govindarajan and R. A. Goldstein. The foldability landscape of model proteins. Biopolymers, 42(4):427–438, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patrice Koehl and Michael Levitt. A brighter future for protein structure prediction. Nature Structural Biology, 6:108–111, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Hao Li, Robert Helling, Chao Tnag, and Ned Wingreen. Emergence of preferred structures in a simple model of protein folding. Science, 273:666–669, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neil Madras and Gordon Slade. The Self-Avoiding Walk. Probability and Its Applications. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tobias Müller and Jörg Würtz. Interfacing propagators with a concurrent constraint language. In JICSLP96 Post-conference workshop and Compulog Net Meeting on Parallelism and Implementation Technology for (Constraint) Logic Programming Languages, pages 195–206, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Britt H. Park and Michael Levitt. The complexity and accuracy of discrete state models of protein structure. Journal of Molecular Biology, 249:493–507, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.-C. Regin. A filtering algorithm for constraints of difference in CSPs. In Proc. 12th Conf. American Assoc. Artificial Intelligence, volume 1, pages 362–367. Amer. Assoc. Artificial Intelligence, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gert Smolka. The Oz programming model. In Jan van Leeuwen, editor, Computer Science Today, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1000, pages 324–343. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. Unger and J. Moult. Genetic algorithms for protein folding simulations. Journal of Molecular Biology, 231:75–81, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ron Unger and John Moult. Local interactions dominate folding in a simple protein model. Journal of Molecular Biology, 259:988–994, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Šali, E. Shakhnovich, and M. Karplus. Kinetics of protein folding. Journal of Molecular Biology, 235:1614–1636, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yu Xia, Enoch S. Huang, Michael Levitt, and Ram Samudrala. Ab initio construction of protein tertiary structures using a hierarchical approach. Journal of Molecular Biology, 300:171–185, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaizhi Yue and Ken A. Dill. Forces of tertiary structural organization in globular proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 92:146–150, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations