Premium
Positioning of anchor groups in protein loop prediction: The importance of solvent accessibility and secondary structure elements
Author(s) -
Wohlfahrt Gerd,
Hangoc Vu,
Schomburg Dietmar
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
proteins: structure, function, and bioinformatics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.699
H-Index - 191
eISSN - 1097-0134
pISSN - 0887-3585
DOI - 10.1002/prot.10098
Subject(s) - loop (graph theory) , loop modeling , indel , amino acid , protein secondary structure , homology modeling , homology (biology) , protein structure , mathematics , computer science , crystallography , protein structure prediction , chemistry , combinatorics , biochemistry , gene , genotype , single nucleotide polymorphism , enzyme
The prediction of loop regions in the process of protein structure prediction by homology is still an unsolved problem. In an earlier publication, we could show that the correct placement of the amino acids serving as an anchor group to be connected by a loop fragment with a predicted geometry is a highly important step and an essential requirement within the process (Lessel and Schomburg, Proteins 1999;37:56–64). In this article, we present an analysis of the quality of possible loop predictions with respect to gap length, fragment length, amino acid type, secondary structure, and solvent accessibility. For 550 insertions and 544 deletions, we test all possible positions for anchor groups with an inserted loop of a length between 3 and 12 amino acids. We could show that approximately 80% of the indel regions could be predicted within 1.5 Å RMSD from a knowledge‐based loop data base if criteria for the correct localization of anchor groups could be found and the loops can be sorted correctly. From our analysis, several conclusions regarding the optimal placement of anchor groups become obvious: (1) The correct placement of anchor groups is even more important for longer gap lengths, (2) medium length fragments (length 5–8) perform better than short or long ones, (3) the placement of anchor groups at hydrophobic amino acids gives a higher chance to include the best possible loop, (4) anchor groups within secondary structure elements, in particular β‐sheets are suitable, (5) amino acids with lower solvent accessibility are better anchor group. A preliminary test using a combination of the anchor group positioning criteria deduced from our analysis shows very promising results. Proteins 2002;47:370–378. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.