Automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps.

PLoS One

Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Fundamental Problems of Technology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland.

Published: July 2018

Mirror protein structures are often considered as artifacts in modeling protein structures. However, they may soon become a new branch of biochemistry. Moreover, methods of protein structure reconstruction, based on their residue-residue contact maps, need methodology to differentiate between models of native and mirror orientation, especially regarding the reconstructed backbones. We analyzed 130 500 structural protein models obtained from contact maps of 1 305 SCOP domains belonging to all 7 structural classes. On average, the same numbers of native and mirror models were obtained among 100 models generated for each domain. Since their structural features are often not sufficient for differentiating between the two types of model orientations, we proposed to apply various energy terms (ETs) from PyRosetta to separate native and mirror models. To automate the procedure for differentiating these models, the k-means clustering algorithm was applied. Using total energy did not allow to obtain appropriate clusters-the accuracy of the clustering for class A (all helices) was no more than 0.52. Therefore, we tested a series of different k-means clusterings based on various combinations of ETs. Finally, applying two most differentiating ETs for each class allowed to obtain satisfying results. To unify the method for differentiating between native and mirror models, independent of their structural class, the two best ETs for each class were considered. Finally, the k-means clustering algorithm used three common ETs: probability of amino acid assuming certain values of dihedral angles Φ and Ψ, Ramachandran preferences and Coulomb interactions. The accuracies of clustering with these ETs were in the range between 0.68 and 0.76, with sensitivity and selectivity in the range between 0.68 and 0.87, depending on the structural class. The method can be applied to all fully-automated tools for protein structure reconstruction based on contact maps, especially those analyzing big sets of models.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5963800PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196993PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

native mirror
20
contact maps
16
mirror models
12
models
9
mirror protein
8
protein models
8
models contact
8
protein structures
8
protein structure
8
structure reconstruction
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!