The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An evaluation of the performance of an automated procedure for comparative modelling of protein tertiary structure
Abstract
A 3-D model of a protein can be constructed from its amino acid sequence and the 3-D structures of one or more homologues by annealing three sets of fragments: the structurally conserved regions, structurally variable regions and the side chains. The method encoded in the computer program COMPOSER was assessed by generating 3-D models of eight proteins whose crystal structures are already known and for which 3-D structures of homologues are available. In the structurally conserved regions, differences between modelled and X-ray structures are smaller than the differences between the X-ray structures of the modelled protein and the homologues used to build the model. When several homologues are used, the contributions of the known structures are weighted, preferably by the square of sequence similarity; this is especially important when the similarities of the homologues to the modelled structure differ greatly. The 'collar' extension approach, in which a similar region of different length in a homologue is used to extend the framework, can result in a more accurate model. If known homologues comprise more than one related group of proteins and they are both distantly related to the unknown, then alignment of the sequence to be modelled with each group of homologues facilitates identification of structurally conserved regions of the unknown and leads to an improved model. Models have root mean square differences (r.m.s.d.s) with the structures defined by X-ray analysis of between 0.73 and 1.56 A for all C alpha atoms, for seven the eight models. For the model of mucor pepsin, where the closest homologue has 33% sequence identity and 20% of the residues are in structurally variable regions, the r.m.s.d. for the framework region is 1.71 A and the r.m.s.d. for all C alpha atoms is 3.47 A.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The domains presented were the consensus of folds identified by Composer [53], MatchMaker [54], GeneFold [55], Robetta [56], Fugue [57], and Swiss-Model [58].”
From Als3 Is a Candida albicans Invasin That Binds to Cadherins and Induces Endocytosis by Host Cells (2007) · cites this paper as [53]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparative Protein Structure Modeling Using Modeller
Eswar, N., Webb, B., Martı́-Renom, M. A., Madhusudhan, M. S., Eramian, D., Shen, M., Pieper, U., & Šali, A. (2006) · Current Protocols in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/0471250953.bi0506s15 · Cited by 4,618
Comparative Protein Structure Modeling Using MODELLER
Webb, B., & Šali, A. (2016) · Current Protocols in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/cpbi.3 · Cited by 4,404
Comparative Protein Structure Modeling of Genes and Genomes
Martí-Renom, M. A., Stuart, A. C., Fiser, A., Sánchez, R., Melo, F., & Šali, A. (2000) · Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure · doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.29.1.291 · Cited by 3,169
Comparative Protein Structure Modeling Using MODELLER
Eswar, N., Webb, B., Martı́-Renom, M. A., Madhusudhan, M. S., Eramian, D., Shen, M., Pieper, U., & Šali, A. (2007) · Current Protocols in Protein Science · doi:10.1002/0471140864.ps0209s50 · Cited by 2,874
Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality
Zhang, Y., & Skolnick, J. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20264 · Cited by 2,392
Metadata
- Authors
- Srinivasan, N., & Blundell, T. L.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
- Venue
- "Protein Engineering, Design and Selection"
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1993
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 501-512
- ISSN
- 0269-2139 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-0126
- 1741-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2053449148
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Protein Engineering Design and Selection (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Structural Biology › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Keywords
- protein tertiary structure, homology modeling, composer, model accuracy assessment, RMSD
- MeSH terms
- Amino Acid Sequence, Azurin, Computer Simulation, Elapid Venoms, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Models, Molecular, Molecular Sequence Data, Muramidase, Myoglobin, Pepsin A, Software, Trypsin, Reproducibility of Results, Aspartic Acid Endopeptidases, Sequence Homology, Amino Acid, Protein Structure, Tertiary
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review