Cargando…

A critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs

Protein design algorithms enumerate a combinatorial number of candidate structures to compute the Global Minimum Energy Conformation (GMEC). To efficiently find the GMEC, protein design algorithms must methodically reduce the conformational search space. By applying distance and energy cutoffs, the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jain, Swati, Jou, Jonathan D., Georgiev, Ivelin S., Donald, Bruce R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5391103/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28358804
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005346
_version_ 1783229214856577024
author Jain, Swati
Jou, Jonathan D.
Georgiev, Ivelin S.
Donald, Bruce R.
author_facet Jain, Swati
Jou, Jonathan D.
Georgiev, Ivelin S.
Donald, Bruce R.
author_sort Jain, Swati
collection PubMed
description Protein design algorithms enumerate a combinatorial number of candidate structures to compute the Global Minimum Energy Conformation (GMEC). To efficiently find the GMEC, protein design algorithms must methodically reduce the conformational search space. By applying distance and energy cutoffs, the protein system to be designed can thus be represented using a sparse residue interaction graph, where the number of interacting residue pairs is less than all pairs of mutable residues, and the corresponding GMEC is called the sparse GMEC. However, ignoring some pairwise residue interactions can lead to a change in the energy, conformation, or sequence of the sparse GMEC vs. the original or the full GMEC. Despite the widespread use of sparse residue interaction graphs in protein design, the above mentioned effects of their use have not been previously analyzed. To analyze the costs and benefits of designing with sparse residue interaction graphs, we computed the GMECs for 136 different protein design problems both with and without distance and energy cutoffs, and compared their energies, conformations, and sequences. Our analysis shows that the differences between the GMECs depend critically on whether or not the design includes core, boundary, or surface residues. Moreover, neglecting long-range interactions can alter local interactions and introduce large sequence differences, both of which can result in significant structural and functional changes. Designs on proteins with experimentally measured thermostability show it is beneficial to compute both the full and the sparse GMEC accurately and efficiently. To this end, we show that a provable, ensemble-based algorithm can efficiently compute both GMECs by enumerating a small number of conformations, usually fewer than 1000. This provides a novel way to combine sparse residue interaction graphs with provable, ensemble-based algorithms to reap the benefits of sparse residue interaction graphs while avoiding their potential inaccuracies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5391103
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53911032017-05-03 A critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs Jain, Swati Jou, Jonathan D. Georgiev, Ivelin S. Donald, Bruce R. PLoS Comput Biol Research Article Protein design algorithms enumerate a combinatorial number of candidate structures to compute the Global Minimum Energy Conformation (GMEC). To efficiently find the GMEC, protein design algorithms must methodically reduce the conformational search space. By applying distance and energy cutoffs, the protein system to be designed can thus be represented using a sparse residue interaction graph, where the number of interacting residue pairs is less than all pairs of mutable residues, and the corresponding GMEC is called the sparse GMEC. However, ignoring some pairwise residue interactions can lead to a change in the energy, conformation, or sequence of the sparse GMEC vs. the original or the full GMEC. Despite the widespread use of sparse residue interaction graphs in protein design, the above mentioned effects of their use have not been previously analyzed. To analyze the costs and benefits of designing with sparse residue interaction graphs, we computed the GMECs for 136 different protein design problems both with and without distance and energy cutoffs, and compared their energies, conformations, and sequences. Our analysis shows that the differences between the GMECs depend critically on whether or not the design includes core, boundary, or surface residues. Moreover, neglecting long-range interactions can alter local interactions and introduce large sequence differences, both of which can result in significant structural and functional changes. Designs on proteins with experimentally measured thermostability show it is beneficial to compute both the full and the sparse GMEC accurately and efficiently. To this end, we show that a provable, ensemble-based algorithm can efficiently compute both GMECs by enumerating a small number of conformations, usually fewer than 1000. This provides a novel way to combine sparse residue interaction graphs with provable, ensemble-based algorithms to reap the benefits of sparse residue interaction graphs while avoiding their potential inaccuracies. Public Library of Science 2017-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5391103/ /pubmed/28358804 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005346 Text en © 2017 Jain et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jain, Swati
Jou, Jonathan D.
Georgiev, Ivelin S.
Donald, Bruce R.
A critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs
title A critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs
title_full A critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs
title_fullStr A critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs
title_full_unstemmed A critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs
title_short A critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs
title_sort critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5391103/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28358804
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005346
work_keys_str_mv AT jainswati acriticalanalysisofcomputationalproteindesignwithsparseresidueinteractiongraphs
AT joujonathand acriticalanalysisofcomputationalproteindesignwithsparseresidueinteractiongraphs
AT georgievivelins acriticalanalysisofcomputationalproteindesignwithsparseresidueinteractiongraphs
AT donaldbrucer acriticalanalysisofcomputationalproteindesignwithsparseresidueinteractiongraphs
AT jainswati criticalanalysisofcomputationalproteindesignwithsparseresidueinteractiongraphs
AT joujonathand criticalanalysisofcomputationalproteindesignwithsparseresidueinteractiongraphs
AT georgievivelins criticalanalysisofcomputationalproteindesignwithsparseresidueinteractiongraphs
AT donaldbrucer criticalanalysisofcomputationalproteindesignwithsparseresidueinteractiongraphs