help button home button Biophys. J.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH

Biophys. J. BioFAST: First Published May 11, 2007. doi:10.1529/biophysj.107.109959
© 2007 by the Biophysical Society.


A more recent version of this article appeared on September 1, 2007.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
biophysj.107.109959v1
93/5/1510    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zhou, H.
Right arrow Articles by Skolnick, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zhou, H.
Right arrow Articles by Skolnick, J.

BIOPHYSICAL THEORY AND MODELING

Ab initio protein structure prediction using chunk-TASSER

Hongyi Zhou 1 and Jeffrey Skolnick 1*

1 Georgia Institute of Technology

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: skolnick{at}gatech.edu.

Submitted on March 30, 2007
Revised on May 2, 2007
Accepted on 9 May 2007


   Abstract
We have developed an ab initio protein structure prediction method called chunk-TASSER that uses ab initio folded supersecondary structure chunks of a given target as well as threading templates for obtaining contact potentials and distance restraints. The predicted chunks, selected on the basis of a new fragment comparison method, are folded by a fragment insertion method. Full-length models are built and refined by the TASSER methodology, which searches conformational space via parallel hyperbolic Monte Carlo. We employ an optimized reduced force field that includes knowledge-based statistical potentials and restraints derived from the chunks as well as threading templates. The method is tested on a dataset of 425 hard target proteins ≤250 amino acids (AA) in length. The average TM-scores of the best of top five models per target are 0.266, 0.336 and 0.362 by the threading algorithm SP3 , original TASSER and chunk-TASSER respectively. For a subset of 80 proteins with predicted {alpha}-helix content ≥50%, these averages are 0.284, 0.356 and 0.403 respectively. The percentages of proteins with the best of top five models having TM-score ≥0.4 (a statistically significant threshold for structural similarity) are 3.76%, 20.94% and 28.94% by SP3 , TASSER and chunk-TASSER respectively overall, while for the subset of 80 predominantly helical proteins, these percentages are 2.50%, 23.75% and 41.25%. Thus, chunk-TASSER shows a significant improvement over TASSER for modeling hard targets where no good template can be identified. We also tested chunk-TASSER on 21 medium/hard targets less than 200 AA long from CASP7. Chunk-TASSER is about 11% (10%) better than TASSER for the total TM-score of the first (best of top five) models. Chunk-TASSER is fully automated and can be used in proteome scale protein structure prediction.

Key Words: Ab initio structure prediction, SP3, TASSER




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Biophys. JHome page
S. Y. Lee and J. Skolnick
Benchmarking of TASSER_2.0: An Improved Protein Structure Prediction Algorithm with More Accurate Predicted Contact Restraints
Biophys. J., August 15, 2008; 95(4): 1956 - 1964.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Protein Eng Des SelHome page
B. Shen, J. Bai, and M. Vihinen
Physicochemical feature-based classification of amino acid mutations
Protein Eng. Des. Sel., January 1, 2008; 21(1): 37 - 44.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2007 by the Biophysical Society.