IBM Skip to main content
  Home     Products & services     Support & downloads     My account  
  Select a country  
Journals Home  
  Systems Journal  
  ·  Current Issue  
  ·  Recent Issues  
  ·  Papers in Progress  
  ·  Search/Index  
  ·  Orders  
  ·  Description  
  ·  Author's Guide  
Journal of Research
and Development
  Staff  
  Contact Us  
  Related links:  
     IBM Life Sciences  
     CASP  
     CAFASP  
     LiveBench  
     Deep Blue  
IBM Systems Journal  
Volume 40, Number 2, 2001
Deep computing for the life sciences
 Table of contents: arrowHTML arrowPDF arrowASCII   This article: arrowHTML arrowPDF arrowASCII arrowCopyright info
   

Convergent evolution of protein structure prediction and computer chess tournaments: CASP, Kasparov, and CAFASP - References
by N. Siew and D. Fischer

Cited references and notes

  1. C. Anfinsen, “Principles That Govern the Folding of Protein Chains,” Science 181, 223–227 (1973).
  2. D. Fischer, C. Barret, K. Bryson, A. Elofsson, A. Godzik, D. Jones, K. J. Karplus, L. A. Kelley, R. M. MacCallum, K. Pawlowski, B. Rost, L. Rychlewski, and M. Sternberg, “CAFASP-1: Critical Assessment of Fully Automated Structure Prediction Methods,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 209–217 (1999).
  3. J. Moult, T. Hubbard, K. Fidelis, and J. T. Pedersen, “Critical Assessment of Methods of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP): Round III,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 2–6 (1999).
  4. C. Chothia and A. M. Lesk, “Relationship Between the Divergence of Sequence and Structure in Proteins,” EMBO Journal 5, 823–827 (1986).
  5. A. M. Lesk and C. Chothia, “The Response of Protein Structure to Amino-Acid Sequence Changes,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 317, 345–356 (1986).
  6. S. B. Needleman and C. D. Wunsch, “A General Method Applicable to the Search for Similarities in the Amino Acid Sequence of Two Proteins,” Journal of Molecular Biology 48, 443–453 (1970).
  7. T. F. Smith and M. S. Waterman, “Identification of Common Molecular Subsequences,” Journal of Molecular Biology 147, 195–197 (1981).
  8. M. O. Dayhoff, W. C. Barker, and L. T. Hunt, “Establishing Homologies in Protein Sequences,” Methods in Enzymology 91, 524–545 (1983).
  9. C. Sander and R. Schneider, “Database of Homology-Derived Protein Structures and the Structural Meaning of Sequence Alignment,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 9, 56–68 (1991).
  10. M. Hilbert, G. Bohm, and R. Jaenicke, “Structural Relationships of Homologous Proteins as a Fundamental Principle in Homology Modeling,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 17, 138–151 (1993).
  11. B. Honig, “Protein Folding: From the Levinthal Paradox to Structure Prediction,” Journal of Molecular Biology 293, 283–293 (1999).
  12. T. A. Jones and S. Thirup, “Using Known Substructures in Protein Model Building and Crystallography,” EMBO Journal 5, No. 4, 819–822 (1986).
  13. A. Sali, “Modeling Mutations and Homologous Proteins,” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 6, No. 4, 437–451 (1995).
  14. M. S. Johnson, N. Srinivasan, R. Sowshamini, and T. L. Blundell, “Knowledge-Based Protein Modeling,” CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 29, 1–68 (1994).
  15. G. J. Barton, “Protein Sequence Alignment and Database Scanning,” Protein Structure Prediction: A Practical Approach, M. J. E. Sternberg, Editor, IRL Press at Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996), pp. 31–64.
  16. J. Janin, S. Wodak, M. Levitt, and B. Maigret, “Conformation of Amino Acid Side Chains in Proteins,” Journal of Molecular Biology 125, 357–386 (1978).
  17. J. W. Ponder and F. M. Richards, “Tertiary Templates for Proteins: Use of Packing Criteria in the Enumeration of Allowed Sequences for Different Structural Classes,” Journal of Molecular Biology 193, 775–791 (1987).
  18. M. Vasquez, “Modeling Side-Chain Conformation,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 6, No. 2, 217–221 (1996).
  19. J. Moult and M. N. G. James, “An Algorithm for Determining the Conformation of Polypeptide Segments in Proteins by Systematic Search,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 1, 146–163 (1986).
  20. R. E. Bruccoleri and M. Karplus, “Prediction of the Folding of Short Polypeptide Segments by Uniform Conformational Sampling,” Biopolymers 26, 137–168 (1987).
  21. K. Fidelis, P. S. Stern, D. Bacon, and J. Moult, “Comparison of Systematic Search and Database Methods for Constructing Segments of Protein Structure,” Protein Engineering 7, 953–960 (1994).
  22. V. Collura, J. Higo, and J. Garnier, “Modeling of Protein Loops by Simulated Annealing,” Protein Science 2, 1502–1510 (1993).
  23. N. Srinivasan, K. Guruprasad, and T. L. Blundell, “Comparative Modelling of Proteins,” Protein Structure Prediction: A Practical Approach, M. J. E. Sternberg, Editor, IRL Press at Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996), pp. 111–140.
  24. B. R. Brooks, R. E. Bruccoleri, B. D. Olafson, B. J. States, S. Swaminathan, and M. Kaplus, “CHARMM: A Program for Macromolecular Energy Minimization and Dynamics Calculations,” Journal of Computational Chemistry 4, 187–217 (1983).
  25. S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, “Optimization by Simulated Annealing,” Science 220, 671–680 (1983).
  26. L. Holm and C. Sander, “Fast and Simple Monte Carlo Algorithm for Side Chain Optimization in Proteins: Application to Model Building by Homology,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 14, 213–223 (1992).
  27. D. Fischer and D. Eisenberg, “Predicting Structures for Genome Proteins,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 9, 208–211 (1999).
  28. R. Sanchez and A. Sali, “Large-Scale Protein Structure Modeling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genome,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 95, 13597–13602 (1998).
  29. C. A. Orengo, D. T. Jones, and J. M. Thornton, “Protein Superfamilies and Domain Superfolds,” Nature 372, 631–634 (1994).
  30. C. A. Orengo, T. P. Flores, D. T. Jones, W. R. Taylor, and J. M. Thornton, “Recurring Structural Motifs in Proteins with Different Functions,” Current Biology 6, 131–139 (1993).
  31. D. Fischer and D. Eisenberg, “Assigning Folds to the Proteins Encoded by the Genome of Mycoplasma genitalium,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 94, 11929–11934 (1997).
  32. D. Fischer, D. Rice, J. U. Bowie, and D. Eisenberg, “Assigning Amino Acid Sequences to 3-Dimensional Protein Folds,” FASEB Journal 10, 126–136 (1996).
  33. U. Hobohm, M. Scharf, R. Schneider, and C. Sander, “Selection of Representative Protein Data Sets,” Protein Science 1, 409–417 (1992).
  34. J. Boberg, T. Salakoski, and M. Vihinen, “Selection of a Representative Set of Structures from Brookhaven Protein Databank,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 14, 265–276 (1992).
  35. D. Fischer, C. J. Tsai, R. Nussinov, and H. Wolfson, “A 3-D Sequence-Independent Representation of the Protein Data Bank,” Protein Engineering 8, No. 10, 981–997 (1994).
  36. J. U. Bowie, R. Luthy, and D. Eisenberg, “A Method to Identify Protein Sequences that Fold into a Known Three-Dimensional Structure,” Science 253, 164–170 (1991).
  37. M. J. Sippl, “Calculation of Conformational Ensembles from Potentials of Mean Force: An Approach to the Knowledge-Based Prediction of Local Structures in Globular Proteins,” Journal of Molecular Biology 213, 859–883 (1990).
  38. M. J. Sippl and S. Weitckus, “Detection of Native Like Models for Amino Acid Sequences of Unknown Three Dimensional Structure in a Database of Known Protein Conformations,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 13, 258–271 (1992).
  39. A. Godzik, A. Kolinski, and J. Skolnick, “Topology Fingerprint Approach to the Inverse Folding Problem,” Journal of Molecular Biology 227, 227–238 (1992).
  40. S. H. Bryant and C. E. Lawrence, “An Empirical Energy Function for Threading Protein Sequences Through Folding Motifs,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 16, 92–112 (1993).
  41. D. Jones and J. Thornton, “Protein Fold Recognition,” Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 7, 439–456 (1993).
  42. M. J. Sippl, “Knowledge-Based Potentials for Proteins,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 5, 229–235 (1995).
  43. D. T. Jones, “Protein Structure Prediction in the Postgenomic Era,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 10, 371–379 (2000).
  44. R. H. Lathrop, “The Protein Threading Problem with Sequence Amino Acid Interaction Preferences Is NP-complete,” Protein Engineering 7, 1059–1068 (1994).
  45. M. Wilmanns and D. Eisenberg, “Inverse Protein Folding by the Residue Pair Preference Profile Method: Estimating the Correctness of Alignments of Structurally Compatible Sequences,” Protein Engineering 8, No. 7, 627–639 (1995).
  46. D. T. Jones, W. R. Taylor, and J. M. Thornton, “A New Approach to Protein Fold Recognition,” Nature 358, 86–89 (1992).
  47. S. H. Bryant and S. F. Altschul, “Statistics of Sequence-Structure Threading,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 5, 236–244 (1995).
  48. C. Chothia, “One Thousand Folds for the Molecular Biologist,” Nature 357, 543–544 (1992).
  49. A. G. Murzin, S. E. Brenner, T. Hubbard, and C. Chothia, “SCOP: A Structural Classification of Proteins Database for the Investigation of Sequences and Structures,” Journal of Molecular Biology 247, 536–540 (1995).
  50. C. A. Orengo, A. D. Michie, S. Jones, D. T. Jones, M. B. Swindells, and J. M. Thornton, “CATH—A Hierarchic Classification of Protein Domain Structures,” Structure 5, No. 8, 1093–1108 (1997).
  51. G. T. Montelione and S. Anderson, “Structural Genomics: Keystone for a Human Proteome Project,” Nature Structural Biology 6, 11–12 (1999).
  52. S. H. Kim, “Shining a Light on Structural Genomics,” Nature Structural Biology 5, 643–645 (1998).
  53. T. Gaasterland, “Structural Genomics Taking Shape,” Trends in Genetics 14, 135 (1998).
  54. S. E. Brenner and M. Levitt, “Expectations from Structural Genomics,” Protein Science 9, 197–200 (2000).
  55. D. Fischer, “Rational Structural Genomics: Affirmative Action for ORFans and the Growth in Our Structural Knowledge,” Protein Engineering 12, No. 12, 1029–1030 (1999).
  56. C. A. Orengo, A. E. Todd, and J. M. Thornton, “From Protein Structure to Function,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 9, 374–382 (1999).
  57. In practice, the term “ab initio method” includes a collection of different methods, dealing with different aspects of a protein's structure such as secondary structure prediction (e.g., Reference 58), prediction of contacts between amino acids (e.g., Reference 59), overall packing of the protein's secondary elements, and hybrid methods combining different aspects of the above.43,60-62 That is, structure prediction methods that predict any aspect of protein structure and do not make use of complete, known 3-D structures are considered to be ab initio methods.
  58. B. Rost, “PHD: Predicting One-Dimensional Protein Structure by Profile-Based Neural Networks,” Methods in Enzymology 266, 525–539 (1996).
  59. U. Gobel, C. Sander, R. Schneider, and A. Valencia, “Correlated Mutations and Residue Contacts in Proteins,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 18, No. 4, 309–317 (1994).
  60. A. R. Ortiz, A. Kolinski, and J. Skolnick, “Fold Assembly of Small Proteins Using Monte Carlo Simulations Driven by Restraints Derived from Multiple Sequence Alignments,” Journal of Molecular Biology 277, 419–448 (1998).
  61. K. T. Simons, C. Kooperberg, E. Huang, and D. Baker, “Assembly of Protein Tertiary Structures from Fragments with Similar Local Sequences Using Simulated Annealing and Bayesian Scoring Functions,” Journal of Molecular Biology 268, 209–225 (1997).
  62. K. T. Simons, I. Ruczinki, C. Kooperberg, B. A. Fox, C. Bystroff, and D. Baker, “Improved Recognition of Native-like Structures Using a Combination of Sequence-Dependent and Sequence-Independent Features of Proteins,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 34, 82–95 (1999).
  63. D. J. Osguthorpe, “Ab Initio Protein Folding,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 10, 146–152 (2000).
  64. M. Levitt and A. Warshel, “A Computer Simulation of Protein Folding,” Nature 253, 694–698 (1975).
  65. D. Hinds and M. Levitt, “A Lattice Model for Protein Structure Prediction at Low Resolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 89, 2536–2540 (1992).
  66. J. T. Pedersen and J. Moult, “Protein Folding Simulations with Genetic Algorithms and a Detailed Molecular Description,” Journal of Molecular Biology 269, 240–259 (1997).
  67. Z. Sun, X. Xia, O. Guo, and D. Xu, “Protein Structure Prediction in a 210-type Lattice Model: Parameter Optimization in the Genetic Algorithm Using Orthogonal Array,” Journal of Protein Chemistry 181, 39–46 (1999).
  68. K. T. Simons, R. Bonneau, I. Ruczinski, and D. Baker, “Ab Initio Protein Structure Predictions of CASP III Targets Using ROSETTA,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 171–176 (1999).
  69. J. Lee, A. Liwo, D. R. Ripoll, J. Pillardy, and H. A. Scheraga, “Calculation of Protein Conformation by Global Optimization of a Potential Energy Function,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 204–208 (1999).
  70. J. Moult, “Comparison of Potential and Mechanical Forcefields,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 7, 194–199 (1997).
  71. J. T. Pedersen and J. Moult, “Ab Initio Structure Prediction for Small Polypeptides and Protein Fragments Using Genetic Algorithms,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 23, 454–460 (1995).
  72. R. Unger and J. Moult, “Genetic Algorithms for Protein Folding Simulations,” Journal of Molecular Biology 231, 75–81 (1993).
  73. R. Srinivasan and G. D. Rose, “LINUS: A Hierarchic Procedure to Predict the Fold of a Protein,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 22, 81–99 (1995).
  74. A. R. Ortiz, A. Kolinski, and J. Skolnick, “Nativelike Topology Assembly of Small Proteins Using Predicted Restraints in Monte Carlo Folding Simulations,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 95, 1020–1025 (1998).
  75. B. Park, E. Huang, and M. Levitt, “Factors Affecting the Ability of Energy Functions to Discriminate Correct from Incorrect Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology 266, 831–846 (1997).
  76. J. Lee, A. Liwo, and H. A. Scheraga, “Energy-Based De Novo Protein Folding by Conformational Space Annealing and an Off-Lattice United-Residue Force Field: Application to the 10–55 Fragments of Staphylococcal Protein A and to apo calbindin D9K,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 96, 2025–2030 (1999).
  77. J. Moult, J. T. Pedersen, R. Judson, and K. Fidelis, “A Large-Scale Experiment to Assess Protein Structure Prediction Methods,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 23, ii–iv (1995).
  78. J. Moult, T. Hubbard, S. H. Bryant, K. Fidelis, and J. T. Pedersen, “Critical Assessment of Methods of Proteins Structure Prediction (CASP): Round II,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 1, 2–6 (1997).
  79. D. T. Jones, “Progress in Protein Structure Prediction,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 7, 377–387 (1997).
  80. D. Fischer, “Modeling Three-Dimensional Protein Structures for Amino Acid Sequences of the CASP3 Experiment Using Sequence-Derived Predictions,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 61–65 (1999).
  81. D. Shortle, “Structure Prediction: Folding Proteins by Pattern Recognition,” Current Biology 7, R151–R154 (1997).
  82. R. L. Dunbrack, D. L. Gerloff, M. Bower, X. Chen, O. Lichtarge, and F. E. Cohen, “Meeting Review: The Second Meeting on the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP2),” Asilomar, CA (December 13–16, 1996); Folding & Design 2, No. 2, R27–R42 (1997).
  83. D. Fischer, “Hybrid Fold Recognition: Combining Sequence Derived Properties with Evolutionary Information,” Proceedings of the 1st Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (2000), pp. 119–130.
  84. L. A. Kelley, R. M. MacCallum, and M. J. E. Sternberg, “Recognition of Remote Protein Homologies Using Three-Dimensional Information to Generate a Position Specific Protein Matrix in the Program 3D-PSSM,” RECOMB99—Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Computational Biology, S. Istrail, P. Pevzner, and M. Waterman, Editors, Association for Computing Machinery, New York (1999), pp. 218–225.
  85. S. F. Altschul, T. L. Madden, A. A. Schaffer, J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, W. Miller, and D. J. Lipman, “Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A New Generation of Protein Database Search Programs,” Nucleic Acids Research 25, No. 17, 3389–3402 (1997).
  86. A. Krogh, M. Brown, I. S. Mian, K. Sjolander, and D. Haussler, “Hidden Markov Models in Computational Biology: Applications to Protein Modeling,” Journal of Molecular Biology 235, 1501–1531 (1994).
  87. A. R. Ortiz, A. Kolinski, P. Rotkiewicz, B. Ilkowski, and J. Skolnick, “Ab Initio Folding of Proteins Using Restraints Derived from Evolutionary Information,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, Supplement 3, 177–185 (1999).
  88. D. J. Osguthorpe, “Improved Ab Initio Predictions with a Simplified, Flexible Geometry Model,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 186–193 (1999).
  89. Y. Samudrala, R. Xia, E. Huang, and M. Levitt, “Ab Initio Protein Structure Prediction Using a Combined Hierarchical Approach,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 194–198 (1999).
  90. A. L. Lomize, I. D. Pogozheva, and H. I. Mosberg, “Prediction of Protein Structure: The Problem of Fold Multiplicity,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 199–203 (1999).
  91. M. J. E. Sternberg, P. A. Bates, L. A. Kelley, and R. M. MacCallum, “Progress in Protein Structure Prediction: Assessment of CASP3,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 9, 368–373 (1999).
  92. P. Koehl and M. Levitt, “A Brighter Future for Protein Structure Prediction,” Nature Structural Biology 62, 108–111 (1999).
  93. C. Venclovas, A. Zemla, K. Fidelis, and J. Moult, “Some Measures of Comparative Performance in the Three CASPs,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 231–237 (1999).
  94. M. J. Sippl, P. Lackner, F. S. Domingues, and W. A. Koppersteiner, “An Attempt to Analyze Progress in Fold Recognition from CASP1 to CASP3,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 226–230 (1999).
  95. A. Marchler-Bauer and S. H. Bryant, “A Measure of Progress in Fold Recognition?” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics Supplement 3, 218–225 (1999).
  96. H. M. Berman, J. Westbrook, Z. Feng, G. Gillil, T. N. Bhat, H. Weissig, I. N. Shindyalov, and P. E. Bourne, “The Protein Data Bank,” Nucleic Acids Research 28, 235–242 (2000).
  97. J. M. Bujnicki, A. Elofsson, D. Fischer, and L. Rychlewski, “LiveBench: Continuous Benchmarking of Protein Structure Prediction Servers,” Protein Science 10, 352–361 (2001).
  98. N. Siew, A. Elofsson, L. Rychlewski, and D. Fischer, “MaxSub: An Automated Measure for the Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction Quality,” Bioinformatics 16, 776–785 (2000).
  99. D. Fischer, A. Elofsson, and L. Rychlewski, “The 2000 Olympic Games of Protein Structure Prediction,” Protein Engineering 13, 667–670 (2000).
  100. D. Butler, “IBM Promises Scientists 500-fold Leap in Supercomputing Power,” Nature 402, 705–706 (1999).
  101. F. Allen et al., “Blue Gene: A Vision for Protein Science Using a Petaflop Supercomputer,” IBM Systems Journal 40, No. 2, 310–327 (2001, this issue).
  102. On December 3, 2000, the CASP4/CAFASP2 meeting was held in Asilomar, California. Predictions based on the automated results from various fold-recognition servers and filed under the group name “CAFASP-CONSENSUS” scored within the top 7 performing human groups in CASP4, as judged by the CASP4 assessor. For more details, see the CASP4 and CAFASP2 home pages (listed in the summary and discussion of this paper) and the upcoming special issue of the journal Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics.
  103. Parts of the CAFASP and LiveBench material presented in this paper were adapted from Reference 99.
About IBM | Privacy | Legal | Contact