Premium
ProVal: A protein‐scoring function for the selection of native and near‐native folds
Author(s) -
Berglund Anders,
Head Richard D.,
Welsh Eric A.,
Marshall Garland R.
Publication year - 2003
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.10523
Subject(s) - decoy , protein structure prediction , function (biology) , test set , latent variable , set (abstract data type) , computer science , partial least squares regression , mathematics , protein structure , algorithm , pattern recognition (psychology) , biological system , statistics , artificial intelligence , biology , biochemistry , receptor , evolutionary biology , programming language
A low‐resolution scoring function for the selection of native and near‐native structures from a set of predicted structures for a given protein sequence has been developed. The scoring function, ProVal (Protein Validate), used several variables that describe an aspect of protein structure for which the proximity to the native structure can be assessed quantitatively. Among the parameters included are a packing estimate, surface areas, and the contact order. A partial least squares for latent variables (PLS) model was built for each candidate set of the 28 decoy sets of structures generated for 22 different proteins using the described parameters as independent variables. The C α RMS of the candidate structures versus the experimental structure was used as the dependent variable. The final generalized scoring function was an average of all models derived, ensuring that the function was not optimized for specific fold classes or method of structure generation of the candidate folds. The results show that the crystal structure was scored best in 64% of the 28 test sets and was clearly separated from the decoys in many examples. In all the other cases in which the crystal structure did not rank first, it ranked within the top 10%. Thus, although ProVal could not distinguish between predicted structures that were similar overall in fold quality due to its inherently low resolution, it can clearly be used as a primary filter to eliminate ∼90% of fold candidates generated by current prediction methods from all‐atom modeling and further evaluation. The correlation between the predicted and actual C α RMS values varies considerably between the candidate fold sets. Proteins 2003;53:000–000. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.