Comparative Study of Computational Strategies for Protein Structure Prediction
Protein Folding Problem (PFP) is one of the most challenging problems of combinatorial optimization with applications in bioinformatics and molecular biology. The aim of PFP is to find the three-dimensional structure of a protein, this structure is known as Native Structure (NS), which is characterized by the minimal energy of Gibbs and it is commonly the best functional structure. To find an NS knowing only the amino acids sequence (primary structure) of a protein is known as ab initio problem. A protein can take a huge number of different conformational structures from its primary structure to the NS. For solving PFP, several computational strategies are applied in order to search structures of protein on a huge space of possible solutions. In this work, the most popular methods and strategies are compared, and advantages and disadvantages of them are discussed.
KeywordsProtein folding problem Computational strategies Ab initio Threading Homology
The authors would like to acknowledge with appreciation and gratitude to CONACYT. Also, acknowledge to Laboratorio Nacional de Tecnologías de la Información (LaNTI) of the Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Madero for the access to the cluster. Fanny Gabriela Maldonado-Nava would like to thank CONACYT for the support in the project 429028.
- 3.K.A. Dill, J.L. MacCallum, The protein-folding problem, 50 years on. Science (80-.) 338(6110), 1042–1046 (2012)Google Scholar
- 8.J.T. Ngo, J. Marks, M. Karplus, in The Protein Folding Problem and Tertiary Structure Prediction. Computational Complexity, Protein Structure Prediction, and the Levinthal Paradox (Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, 1994), pp. 433–506Google Scholar
- 9.C.B. Anfinsen, Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. Science (80-.) 181(4096), 223–230 (1973)Google Scholar
- 10.M. Dorn, M.B. e Silva, L.S. Buriol, L.C. Lamb, Three-dimensional protein structure prediction: methods and computational strategies. Comput. Biol. Chem. 53, 251–276 (2014)Google Scholar
- 11.A.A. Yee, A. Savchenko, A. Ignachenko, J. Lukin, X. Xu, T. Skarina, E. Evdokimova, C.S. Liu, A. Semesi, V. Guido, A.M. Edwards, C.H. Arrowsmith, NMR and X-ray crystallography, complementary tools in structural proteomics of small proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127(47), 16512–16517 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Y. Zhang, Interplay of I-TASSER and QUARK for template-based and ab initio protein structure prediction in CASP10. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinforma. 82(SUPPL. 2), 175–187 (2013)Google Scholar
- 19.C.A. Rohl, C.E.M. Strauss, K.M.S. Misura, D. Baker, Protein structure prediction using rosetta. Methods Enzymol. 383, 66–93 (2004)Google Scholar
- 23.F.A. Momany, R.F. McGuire, A.W. Burgess, H.A. Scheraga, Energy parameters in polypeptides. VII. Geometric parameters, partial atomic charges, nonbonded interactions, hydrogen bond interactions, and intrinsic torsional potentials for the naturally occurring amino acids. J. Phys. Chem. 79(22), 2361–2381 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar