From Protein Structure to Function with Bioinformatics.pdf

1 Ab Initio Protein Structure Prediction 23Li Z, Scheraga HA (1987) Monte Carlo-minimization approach to the multiple-minima problemin protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84(19):6611–6615Lindahl E, Hess B, van der Spoel D (2001) GROMACS 3.0: a package for molecular simulationand trajectory analysis. J Mol Model 7:306–317Liwo A, Pincus MR, Wawak RJ, et al. (1993) Calculation of protein backbone geometry fromalpha-carbon coordinates based on peptide-group dipole alignment. Protein Sci2(10):1697–1714Liwo A, Lee J, Ripoll DR, et al. (1999) Protein structure prediction by global optimization of apotential energy function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(10):5482–5485Liwo A, Khalili M, Scheraga HA (2005) Ab initio simulations of protein-folding pathways bymolecular dynamics with the united-residue model of polypeptide chains. Proc Natl Acad SciUSA 102(7):2362–2367Lu H, Skolnick J (2001) A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improvedprotein structure selection. Proteins 44(3):223–232Luthy R, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D (1992) Assessment of protein models with three-dimensionalprofiles. Nature 356(6364):83–85MacKerell Jr. AD, Bashford D, Bellott M, et al. (1998) All-atom empirical potential for molecularmodeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J Phys Chem B 102 (18):3586–3616McGuffin LJ (2007) Benchmarking consensus model quality assessment for protein fold recognition.BMC Bioinformatics 8:345Melo F, Sanchez R, Sali A (2002) Statistical potentials for fold assessment. Protein Sci11(2):430–448Moult J, Fidelis K, Zemla A, et al. (2001) Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction(CASP): round IV. Proteins(Suppl 5):2–7Nemethy G, Gibson KD, Palmer KA, et al. (1992) Energy parameters in polypeptides. 10.Improved geometric parameters and nonbonded interactions for use in the ECEPP/3 algorithm,with application to proline-containing peptides. J Phys Chem B 96: 6472–6484Neria E, Fischer S, Karplus M (1996) Simulation of activation free energies in molecular systems.J Chem Phys 105(5):1902–1921Nilges M, Brunger AT (1991) Automated modeling of coiled coils: application to the GCN4dimerization region. Protein Eng 4(6):649–659Oldziej S, Czaplewski C, Liwo A, et al. (2005) Physics-based protein-structure prediction using ahierarchical protocol based on the UNRES force field: assessment in two blind tests. Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(21):7547–7552Park B, Levitt M (1996) Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from wellconstructeddecoys. J Mol Biol 258(2):367–392Petrey D, Honig B (2000) Free energy determinants of tertiary structure and the evaluation ofprotein models. Protein Sci 9(11):2181–2191Pettitt CS, McGuffin LJ, Jones DT (2005) Improving sequence-based fold recognition by using3D model quality assessment. Bioinformatics 21(17):3509–3515Pieper U, Eswar N, Davis FP, et al. (2006) MODBASE: a database of annotated comparative proteinstructure models and associated resources. Nucleic Acids Res 34(Database issue):D291–295Samudrala R, Moult J (1998) An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatoryfunction for protein structure prediction. J Mol Biol 275(5):895–916Shen MY, Sali A (2006) Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures.Protein Sci 15(11):2507–2524Shi J, Blundell TL, Mizuguchi K (2001) FUGUE: sequence-structure homology recognition usingenvironment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. J Mol Biol310(1):243–257Shortle D, Simons KT, Baker D (1998) Clustering of low-energy conformations near the nativestructures of small proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95(19):11158–11162Simons KT, Kooperberg C, Huang E, et al. (1997) Assembly of protein tertiary structures fromfragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions.J Mol Biol 268(1):209–225