• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of prosciprotein sciencecshl presssubscriptionsetoc alertsthe protein societyjournal home
Protein Sci. Feb 1999; 8(2): 361–369.
PMCID: PMC2144252

Pair potentials for protein folding: choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes.

Abstract

We examine the similarities and differences between two widely used knowledge-based potentials, which are expressed as contact matrices (consisting of 210 elements) that gives a scale for interaction energies between the naturally occurring amino acid residues. These are the Miyazawa-Jernigan contact interaction matrix M and the potential matrix S derived by Skolnick J et al., 1997, Protein Sci 6:676-688. Although the correlation between the two matrices is good, there is a relatively large dispersion between the elements. We show that when Thr is chosen as a reference solvent within the Miyazawa and Jernigan scheme, the dispersion between the M and S matrices is reduced. The resulting interaction matrix B gives hydrophobicities that are in very good agreement with experiment. The small dispersion between the S and B matrices, which arises due to differing reference states, is shown to have dramatic effect on the predicted native states of lattice models of proteins. These findings and other arguments are used to suggest that for reliable predictions of protein structures, pairwise additive potentials are not sufficient. We also establish that optimized protein sequences can tolerate relatively large random errors in the pair potentials. We conjecture that three body interaction may be needed to predict the folds of proteins in a reliable manner.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (226K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Camacho CJ, Thirumalai D. Kinetics and thermodynamics of folding in model proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Jul 1;90(13):6369–6372. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Chan HS, Dill KA. Origins of structure in globular proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Aug;87(16):6388–6392. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Du R, Grosberg AY, Tanaka T. Models of protein interactions: how to choose one. Fold Des. 1998;3(3):203–211. [PubMed]
  • Ferrenberg AM, Swendsen RH. Optimized Monte Carlo data analysis. Phys Rev Lett. 1989 Sep 18;63(12):1195–1198. [PubMed]
  • Finkelstein AV, Badretdinov AYa, Gutin AM. Why do protein architectures have Boltzmann-like statistics? Proteins. 1995 Oct;23(2):142–150. [PubMed]
  • Godzik A, Koliński A, Skolnick J. Are proteins ideal mixtures of amino acids? Analysis of energy parameter sets. Protein Sci. 1995 Oct;4(10):2107–2117. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Godzik A. Knowledge-based potentials for protein folding: what can we learn from known protein structures? Structure. 1996 Apr 15;4(4):363–366. [PubMed]
  • Jernigan RL, Bahar I. Structure-derived potentials and protein simulations. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1996 Apr;6(2):195–209. [PubMed]
  • Levitt M. A simplified representation of protein conformations for rapid simulation of protein folding. J Mol Biol. 1976 Jun 14;104(1):59–107. [PubMed]
  • Mirny LA, Shakhnovich EI. How to derive a protein folding potential? A new approach to an old problem. J Mol Biol. 1996 Dec 20;264(5):1164–1179. [PubMed]
  • Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Biol. 1996 Mar 1;256(3):623–644. [PubMed]
  • Moult J. Comparison of database potentials and molecular mechanics force fields. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1997 Apr;7(2):194–199. [PubMed]
  • Nozaki Y, Tanford C. The solubility of amino acids and two glycine peptides in aqueous ethanol and dioxane solutions. Establishment of a hydrophobicity scale. J Biol Chem. 1971 Apr 10;246(7):2211–2217. [PubMed]
  • Roseman MA. Hydrophilicity of polar amino acid side-chains is markedly reduced by flanking peptide bonds. J Mol Biol. 1988 Apr 5;200(3):513–522. [PubMed]
  • Sippl MJ. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1995 Apr;5(2):229–235. [PubMed]
  • Skolnick J, Jaroszewski L, Kolinski A, Godzik A. Derivation and testing of pair potentials for protein folding. When is the quasichemical approximation correct? Protein Sci. 1997 Mar;6(3):676–688. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Sun S. Reduced representation model of protein structure prediction: statistical potential and genetic algorithms. Protein Sci. 1993 May;2(5):762–785. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Tanaka S, Scheraga HA. Medium- and long-range interaction parameters between amino acids for predicting three-dimensional structures of proteins. Macromolecules. 1976 Nov-Dec;9(6):945–950. [PubMed]
  • Thomas PD, Dill KA. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: how accurate are they? J Mol Biol. 1996 Mar 29;257(2):457–469. [PubMed]
  • Zhang L, Skolnick J. How do potentials derived from structural databases relate to "true" potentials? Protein Sci. 1998 Jan;7(1):112–122. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society are provided here courtesy of The Protein Society

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • MedGen
    MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...