Comparative protein modeling is increasingly gaining interest since it is of great assistance during the rational design of mutagenesis experiments. The availability of this method, and the resulting models, has however been restricted by the availability of expensive computer hardware and software. To overcome these limitations, we have developed an environment for comparative protein modeling that consists of SWISS-MODEL, a server for automated comparative protein modeling and of the SWISS-PdbViewer, a sequence to structure workbench. The Swiss-PdbViewer not only acts as a client for SWISS-MODEL, but also provides a large selection of structure analysis and display tools. In addition, we provide the SWISS-MODEL Repository, a database containing more than 3500 automatically generated protein models. By making such tools freely available to the scientific community, we hope to increase the use of protein structures and models in the process of experiment design.

SWISS-MODEL and the Swiss-PdbViewer: an environment for comparative protein modeling.

Proteins are essential to life, and understanding their structure can facilitate a mechanistic understanding of their function. Through an enormous experimental effort1–4, the structures of around 100,000 unique proteins have been determined5, but this represents a small fraction of the billions of known protein sequences6,7. Structural coverage is bottlenecked by the months to years of painstaking effort required to determine a single protein structure. Accurate computational approaches are needed to address this gap and to enable large-scale structural bioinformatics. Predicting the three-dimensional structure that a protein will adopt based solely on its amino acid sequence—the structure prediction component of the ‘protein folding problem’8—has been an important open research problem for more than 50 years9. Despite recent progress10–14, existing methods fall far short of atomic accuracy, especially when no homologous structure is available. Here we provide the first computational method that can regularly predict protein structures with atomic accuracy even in cases in which no similar structure is known. We validated an entirely redesigned version of our neural network-based model, AlphaFold, in the challenging 14th Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP14)15, demonstrating accuracy competitive with experimental structures in a majority of cases and greatly outperforming other methods. Underpinning the latest version of AlphaFold is a novel machine learning approach that incorporates physical and biological knowledge about protein structure, leveraging multi-sequence alignments, into the design of the deep learning algorithm. AlphaFold predicts protein structures with an accuracy competitive with experimental structures in the majority of cases using a novel deep learning architecture.

/pdf/highly-accurate-protein-structure-prediction-with-alphafold-2xjbzfwu3n.pdf

Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

We benchmarked SignalP 4.0 against SignalP 3.0 and ten other signal peptide prediction algorithms (Fig. 1). We compared prediction performance using the Matthews correlation coefficient16, for which each sequence was counted as a true or false positive or negative. To test SignalP 4.0 performance, we did not use data that had been used in training the networks or selecting the optimal architecture, and the test data did not contain homologs to the training and optimization data (Supplementary Methods). The test set for SignalP 3.0 was also independent of the training set because we removed sequences used to construct SignalP 3.0 and their homologs from the benchmark data. For other algorithms more recent than SignalP 3.0, the benchmark data may include data used to train the methods, possibly leading to slight overestimations of their performance. Our results show that SignalP 4.0 was the best signal-peptide predictor for all three organism types (Fig. 1). This comes at a price, however, because SignalP 4.0 was not in all cases as good as SignalP 3.0 according to cleavage-site sensitivity or signal-peptide correlation when there are no transmembrane proteins present (Supplementary Results). An ideal method would have the best SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions

SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions

BIOE 402. Medical Technology Assessment. 2 or 3 hours. Bioentrepreneur course. Assessment of medical technology in the context of commercialization. Objectives, competition, market share, funding, pricing, manufacturing, growth, and intellectual property; many issues unique to biomedical products. Course Information: 2 undergraduate hours. 3 graduate hours. Prerequisite(s): Junior standing or above and consent of the instructor.

“Bioinformatics” 특집을 내면서

A major problem in structural biology is the recognition of errors in experimental and theoretical models of protein structures. The ProSA program (Protein Structure Analysis) is an established tool which has a large user base and is frequently employed in the refinement and validation of experimental protein structures and in structure prediction and modeling. The analysis of protein structures is generally a difficult and cumbersome exercise. The new service presented here is a straightforward and easy to use extension of the classic ProSA program which exploits the advantages of interactive web-based applications for the display of scores and energy plots that highlight potential problems spotted in protein structures. In particular, the quality scores of a protein are displayed in the context of all known protein structures and problematic parts of a structure are shown and highlighted in a 3D molecule viewer. The service specifically addresses the needs encountered in the validation of protein structures obtained from X-ray analysis, NMR spectroscopy and theoretical calculations. ProSA-web is accessible at https://prosa.services.came.sbg.ac.at.

ProSA-web: interactive web service for the recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins.

A major problem in the determination of the three-dimensional structure of proteins concerns the quality of the structural models obtained from the interpretation of experimental data. New developments in X-ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy have accelerated the process of structure determination and the biological community is confronted with a steadily increasing number of experimentally determined protein folds. However, in the recent past several experimentally determined protein structures have been proven to contain major errors, indicating that in some cases the interpretation of experimental data is difficult and may yield incorrect models. Such problems can be avoided when computational methods are employed which complement experimental structure determinations. A prerequisite of such computational tools is that they are independent of the parameters obtained from a particular experiment. In addition such techniques are able to support and accelerate experimental structure determinations. Here we present techniques based on knowledge based mean fields which can be used to judge the quality of protein folds. The methods can be used to identify misfolded structures as well as faulty parts of structural models. The techniques are even applicable in cases where only the C alpha trace of a protein conformation is available. The capabilities of the technique are demonstrated using correct and incorrect protein folds.

Recognition of errors in three‐dimensional structures of proteins

Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins.

Knowledge-based potentials for proteins.

The data base of known protein structures contains a tremendous amount of information on protein-solvent systems. Boltzmann's principle enables the extraction of this information in the form of potentials of mean force. The resulting force field constitutes an energetic model for protein-solvent systems. We outline the basic physical principles of this approach to protein folding and summarize several techniques which are useful in the development of knowledge-based force fields. Among the applications presented are the validation of experimentally determined protein structures, data base searches which aim at the identification of native-like sequence structure pairs, sequence structure alignments and the calculation of protein conformations from amino acid sequences.

Manfred J. Sippl

Papers

ProSA-web: interactive web service for the recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins.

Recognition of errors in three‐dimensional structures of proteins

Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins.

Knowledge-based potentials for proteins.

Boltzmann's principle, knowledge-based mean fields and protein folding. An approach to the computational determination of protein structures.