Combining Protein Fragment Feature-Based Resampling and Local Optimisation

  • Trent Higgs
  • Lukas Folkman
  • Bela Stantic
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7986)

Abstract

Protein structure prediction (PSP) suites can predict ‘near-native’ protein models. However, not always these predicted models are close to the native structure with enough precision to be useful for biologists. The literature to date demonstrates that one of the best techniques to predict ‘near-native’ protein models is to use a fragment-based search strategy. Another technique that can help refine protein models is local optimisation. Local optimisation algorithms use the gradient of the function being optimised to suggest which move will bring the function value closer to its local minimum. In this work we combine the concepts of structural refinement through feature-based resampling, fragment-based PSP, and local optimisation to create an algorithm that can create protein models that are closer to their native states. In experiments we demonstrated that our new method generates models that are close to their native conformations. For structures in the test set, it obtained an average RMSD of 5.09\( \textrm{\AA}\) and an average best TM-Score of 0.47 when no local optimisation was applied. However, by applying local optimisation to our algorithm, additional improvements were achieved.

References

  1. 1.
    Consortium, U.: The universal protein resource (uniprot) 2009. Nucleic Acids Research 37, D169–D174 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Folkman, L., Stantic, B., Sattar, A.: Sequence-only evolutionary and predicted structural features for the prediction of stability changes in protein mutants. BMC Bioinformatics 14(suppl. 2), S6 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sali, A., Blundell, T.: Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. Journal of Molecular Biology 234(3), 779–815 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang, Y., Skolnick, J.: Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on a genomic scale. PNAS 101(20), 7594–7599 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simons, K.: et al. Prospects for ab initio protein structural genomics. Journal of Moleculer Biology 306, 1191–1199 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meredith, D.: Rosetta tackles the extreme origami of protein folding. HHMI Bulletin 14, 20–23 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, Y.: Template-based modeling and free modeling by I-TASSER in CASP7. Proteins 8, 108–117 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rohl, C., Strauss, C., Baker, D.: Protein structure prediction using rosetta. Methods Enzymology 383, 66–93 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonnans, J.: Numerical optimization: theoretical and practical aspects, 2nd edn. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, D., Nocedal, J.: On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Mathematical programming 45(1), 503–528 (1989)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higgs, T., Stantic, B., Hoque, T., Sattar, A.: Genetic algorithm feature-based resampling for protein structure prediction. In: IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, pp. 2665–2672 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Higgs, T., Stantic, B., Hoque, T., Sattar, A.: Refining genetic algorithm twin removal for high-resolution protein structure prediction. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC 2012, 251–258 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Folkman, L., Pullan, W., Stantic, B.: Generic parallel genetic algorithm framework for protein optimisation. In: Xiang, Y., Cuzzocrea, A., Hobbs, M., Zhou, W. (eds.) ICA3PP 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7017, pp. 64–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    CASP8: 8th community wide experiment on the critical assessment of techniques for protein structure prediction (2008), http://predictioncenter.org/casp8/ (last accessed: July 2012)
  15. 15.
    Carugo, O.: Statistical validation of the rootmeansquaredistance, a measure of protein structural proximity. Protein Engineering, Design and Selection 20(1), 3338 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sayle, R.: Molecular visualization freeware and rasmol classic site (2009), http://www.umass.edu/microbio/rasmol/index2.htm (last accessed: February 2011)
  17. 17.
    Bowman, G., Pande, V.: Simulated tempering yields insight into the low-resolution rosetta scoring functions. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 74, 777–788 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shmygelska, A., Levitt, M.: Generalized ensemble methods for de nova structure prediction. PNAS 106(5), 1415–1420 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang, Y., Skolnick, J.: Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins 57, 702–710 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trent Higgs
    • 1
  • Lukas Folkman
    • 1
  • Bela Stantic
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Integrated and Intelligent SystemsGriffith UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations