Cargando…
Automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps
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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5963800/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29787567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196993 |
_version_ | 1783325081640894464 |
---|---|
author | Kurczynska, Monika Kotulska, Malgorzata |
author_facet | Kurczynska, Monika Kotulska, Malgorzata |
author_sort | Kurczynska, Monika |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5963800 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59638002018-06-02 Automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps Kurczynska, Monika Kotulska, Malgorzata PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2018-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5963800/ /pubmed/29787567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196993 Text en © 2018 Kurczynska, Kotulska 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 Kurczynska, Monika Kotulska, Malgorzata Automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps |
title | Automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps |
title_full | Automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps |
title_fullStr | Automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps |
title_full_unstemmed | Automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps |
title_short | Automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps |
title_sort | automated method to differentiate between native and mirror protein models obtained from contact maps |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5963800/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29787567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196993 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kurczynskamonika automatedmethodtodifferentiatebetweennativeandmirrorproteinmodelsobtainedfromcontactmaps AT kotulskamalgorzata automatedmethodtodifferentiatebetweennativeandmirrorproteinmodelsobtainedfromcontactmaps |