Tag Archives: protein structure

A very long introductory post about protein structure prediction

If you are a protein informatician, bioinformatician, biochemist, biologist or simply a person well informed about science, you probably heard about protein structure prediction. If that is the case, you might be wondering what all the fuss is about, right? If you never heard those terms before, don’t panic! You are about to find out what protein structure prediction is all about!

Based on my group meeting’s presentation last Wednesday, this blog entry will discuss why protein structure prediction is important and the potential limitations of existing methods. I will also discuss how the quality of input may be a potential source for lack of accuracy in existing software.

First, let us remember a little biology: our genetic code encrypts the inner-works of a complicated cellular machinery tightly regulated by other (macro)molecules such as proteins and RNAs. These two types of macromolecules are agents that perform the set of instructions codified by DNA. Basically, RNAs and proteins are involved in a series of processes that regulate cellular function and control how the genetic code is accessed and used.

For that reason, a huge chunk of genomic data can be ~~pretty useless~~ not that useful if considered on their own. Scientists around the globe have invested millions of moneys and a huge chunk of time in order to amass piles and piles of genome sequencing data. To be fair, this whole “gotta sequence ’em all” mania did not provide us with the fundamental answers everybody was hoping for. Cracking the genetic code was like watching an episode of Lost, in which we were left with more questions than answers. We got a very complicated map that we can’t really understand just yet.

For that reason, I feel obliged to justify myself: protein structures ARE useful. If we know a protein structure, we can formulate a very educated guess about that protein’s function. Combine that with empirical data (e.g. where and when the protein is expressed) and it can help us unveil a lot of info about the protein’s role in cellular processes. Basically, it can answer some of the questions about the (genomic) map. ~~If only we could do that with Lost…~~

There is also evidence that knowing a protein’s structure can help us design specific drugs to target and inhibit that protein. Although the evidence of such biomedical application is sparse, I believe that with development of the field, there is a trend for protein structures to become more and more important in drug discovery protocols.

Still, if we look at the number of known genome sequences and known protein structures and at the growth of those figures over the past decade, we look at a drastic scenario:

There is a tendency for the gap between the number of protein sequences and protein structures to increase. Hence, we are getting more and more questions and little to no answers. Observe how the green line (the protein sequences associated with a known or predicted function) is very close to the red line (the number of known protein structures). However, there is a growing gap between the red and the blue line (the number of protein sequences). Source: http://gorbi.irb.hr/en/method/growth-of-sequence-databases/

Well, gathering protein structure data is just as important, if not more important, than gathering sequence data. This motivated the creation of Structural Genomics Consortiums (SGC), facilities that specialize in solving protein structures.

I am sorry to tell you that this is all old news. We have known this for years. Nonetheless, the graph above hasn’t changed. Why? The cost limitations and the experimental difficulties associated with protein structure determination are holding us back. Solving protein structures in the lab is hard and time consuming and we are far from being as efficient at structure determination as we are at genome sequencing.

There is a possible solution to the problem: you start with a protein sequence (a sequential aminoacid list) and you try to predict its structure. This is known as protein structure prediction or protein structure modelling. Well, we have a limited number of building blocks (20) and a good understanding of their physicochemical properties, it shouldn’t be that hard right?

Unfortunately, modelling protein structure is not as simple as calculating how fast a block slides on an inclined plane. Predicting protein structure from sequence is a very hard problem indeed! It has troubled a plethora of minds throughout the past decades, making people lose many nights of sleep (I can vouch for that).

We can attribute that to two major limitations:

1- There are so many possible ways one can combine 20 “blocks” in a sequence of hundreds of aminoacids. Each aminoacid can also assume a limited range of conformations. We are looking at a massive combinatorial problem. The conformational space (the space of valid conformations a protein with a given sequence can assume) is so large that if you could check a single conformation every nanosecond, it would still take longer than the age of the universe to probe all possible conformations.

2- Our physics (and our statistics) are inaccurate. We perform so many approximations in order to make the calculations feasible with current computers that we end up with very inaccurate models.

Ok! So now you should know what protein structure prediction is, why it is important and, more importantly, why it is such a hard problem to solve. I am going to finish off by giving you a brief overview of the two most commons approaches to perform protein structure prediction: template-based modelling (also known as homology modelling) and de novo structure prediction.

There is a general understanding that if two proteins have very similar sequences (namely, if they are homologs), than they will have similar structures. So, we can use known structures of homologs as templates to predict other structures. This is known as homology modelling.

One can do a lot of fancy talk to justify why this works. There is the evolutionary argument: “selective pressure acts on the phenotype level (which can encompass a protein structure) rather than the genotype level. Hence protein structures tend to be more conserved than sequence. For that reason and considering that sequence alone is enough to determine structure, similar sequences will have even more similar structures.”

One can also formulate some sort of physics argument: “a similar aminoacid composition will lead to a similar behaviour of the interacting forces that keep the protein structure packed together. Furthermore, the energy minimum where a certain protein structure sits is so stable that it would take quite a lot of changes in the sequence to disturb that minimum energy conformation drastically.”

Probably the best argument in favour of homology modelling is that it works somewhat well. Of course, the accuracy of the models has a strong dependency on the sequence similarity, but for proteins with more than 40% identity, we can use this method in order to obtain good results.

This raises another issue: what if we can’t find a homolog with known structure? How can we model our templateless protein sequence then? Well, turns out that if we group proteins together into families based on their sequence similarity, more than half of the families would not have a member with known structure. [This data was obtained by looking at the representativeness of the Pfam (a protein family database) on the PDB (a protein structure database).]

Ergo, for a majority of cases we have to perform predictions from scratch (known as free modelling or de novo modelling).

Well, not necessarily from scratch. There is a specific approach to free modelling where we can build our models using existing knowledge. We can use chunks of protein, contiguous fragments extracted from known structures, to generate models. This is known as a fragment-based approach to de novo protein structure prediction. And that is one big name!

One can think of this as a small scale homology modelling, where both the physics and evolutionary arguments should still hold true to some degree. And how do we do? Can we generate good models? We perform appallingly! Accuracies are too low to generate any useful knowledge in a majority of cases. The problem with the rare cases when you get it right is that you have no means to know if you actually got the right answer.

The poor quality of the results can be justified by the 2 biggest limitations discussed above. Yet something else might be in play. In homology modelling, if you use a bad template, you will most certainly get a bad model. In a similar way, using a bad set of fragments will lead you to a very poor final model.

Considering we already have the other two big issues (size of conformational space and accuracy of current potentials) to worry about, we should aim to use the best fragment library we possibly can. This has been the recent focus of my work. An attempt to make a small contribution to solve such a hard problem.

I would love to detail my work on finding better fragments here, but I believe this post is already far too long for anyone to actually endure it and read it until the end. So, congratulations if you made it through!

Journal club: Principles for designing ideal protein structures

The goal of protein design is to generate a sequence that assumes a certain structure and/or performs a specific function. A recent paper in Nature has attempted to design sequences for each of five naturally occurring protein folds. The success rate ranges from 10-40%.

This recent work comes from the Baker group, who are best known for Rosetta and have made several previous steps in this direction. In a 2003 paper this group stripped several naturally occurring proteins down to the backbone, and then generated sequences whose side-chains were consistent with these backbone structures. The sequences were expressed and found to fold into proteins, but the structure of these proteins remained undetermined. Later that same year the group designed a protein, Top7, with a novel fold and confirmed that its structure closely matched that of the design (RMSD of 1.2A).

The proteins designed in these three pieces of work (the current paper and the two papers from 2003) all tend to be more stable than naturally occurring proteins. This increased stability may explain why, as with the earlier Top7, the final structures in the current work closely match the design (RMSD 1 or 2A), despite ab initio structure prediction rarely being this accurate. These structures are designed to sit in a deep potential well in the Rosetta energy function, whereas natural proteins presumably have more complicated energy landscapes that allow for conformational changes and easy degradation. Designing a protein with two or more conformations is a challenge for the future.

In the current work, several sequences were designed for each of the fold types. These sequences have substantial sequence similarity to each other, but do not match existing protein families. The five folds all belong to the alpha + beta or alpha/beta SCOP classes. This is a pragmatic choice: all-alpha proteins often fold into undesired alternative topologies, and all-beta proteins are prone to aggregation. By contrast, rules such as the right-handedness of beta-alpha-beta turns have been known since the 1970s, and can be used to help design a fold.

The authors describe several other rules that influence the packing of beta-alpha-beta, beta-beta-alpha and alpha-beta-beta structural elements. These relate the lengths of the elements and their connective loops with the handedness of the resulting subunit. The rules and their derivations are impressive, but it is not clear to what extent they are applied in the design of the 5 folds. The designed folds contain 13 beta-alpha-beta subunits, but only 2 alpha-beta-beta subunits, and 1 beta-beta-alpha subunit.

An impressive feature of the current work is the use of the Rosetta@home project to select sequences with funnelled energy landscapes, which are less likely to misfold. Each candidate sequence was folded >200000 times from an extended chain. Only ~10% of sequences had a funnelled landscape. It would have been interesting to validate whether the rejected sequences really were less likely to adopt the desired fold — especially given that this selection procedure requires vast computational resources.

The design of these five novel proteins is a great achievement, but even greater challenges remain. The present designs are facilitated by the use of short loops in regions connecting secondary structure elements. Functional proteins will probably require longer loops, more marginal stabilities, and a greater variety of secondary structure subunits.

Talk: Membrane Protein 3D Structure Prediction & Loop Modelling in X-ray Crystallography

Seb gave a talk at the Oxford Structural Genomics Consortium on Wednesday 9 Jan 2013. The talk mentioned the work of several other OPIG members. Below is the gist of it.

Homology modelling pipeline with several membrane-protein-specific steps. Input is the target protein’s sequence, output is the finished 3D model.

Fragment-based loop modelling pipeline for X-ray crystallography

Given an incomplete model of a protein, as well as the current electron density map, we apply our loop modelling method FREAD to fill in a gap with many decoy structures. These decoys are then scored using electron density quality measures computed by EDSTATS. This process can be iterated to arrive at a complete model.

Over the past five years the Oxford Protein Informatics Group has produced several pieces of software to model various aspects of membrane protein structure. iMembrane predicts how a given protein structure sits in the lipid bilayer. MP-T aligns a target protein’s sequence to an iMembrane-annotated template structure. MEDELLER produces an accurate core model of the target, based on this target-template alignment. FREAD then fills in the remaining gaps through fragment-based loop modelling. We have assembled all these pieces of software into a single pipeline, which will be released to the public shortly. In the future, further refinements will be added to account for errors in the core model, such as helix kinks and twists.

X-ray crystallography is the most prevalent way to obtain a protein’s 3D structure. In difficult cases, such as membrane proteins, often only low resolution data can be obtained from such experiments, making the subsequent computational steps to arrive at a complete 3D model that much harder. This usually involves tedious manual building of individual residues and much trial and error. In addition, some regions of the protein (such as disordered loops) simply are not represented by the electron density at all and it is difficult to distinguish these from areas that simply require a lot of work to build. To alleviate some of these problems, we are developing a scoring scheme to attach an absolute quality measure to each residue being built by our loop modelling method FREAD, with a view towards automating protein structure solution at low resolution. This work is being carried out in collaboration with Frank von Delft’s Protein Crystallography group at the Oxford Structural Genomics Consortium.