title: Computational modeling of protein mutant stability: analysis and optimization of statistical potentials and structural features reveal insights into prediction model development.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Understanding and predicting protein stability upon point mutations has wide-spread importance in molecular biology. Several prediction models have been developed in the past with various algorithms. Statistical potentials are one of the widely used algorithms for the prediction of changes in stability upon point mutations. Although the methods provide flexibility and the capability to develop an accurate and reliable prediction model, it can be achieved only by the right selection of the structural factors and optimization of their parameters for the statistical potentials. In this work, we have selected five atom classification systems and compared their efficiency for the development of amino acid atom potentials. Additionally, torsion angle potentials have been optimized to include the orientation of amino acids in such a way that altered backbone conformation in different secondary structural regions can be included for the prediction model. This study also elaborates the importance of classifying the mutations according to their solvent accessibility and secondary structure specificity. The prediction efficiency has been calculated individually for the mutations in different secondary structural regions and compared.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Results show that, in addition to using an advanced atom description, stepwise regression and selection of atoms are necessary to avoid the redundancy in atom distribution and improve the reliability of the prediction model validation. Comparing to other atom classification models, Melo-Feytmans model shows better prediction efficiency by giving a high correlation of 0.85 between experimental and theoretical Delta Delta G with 84.06% of the mutations correctly predicted out of 1538 mutations. The theoretical Delta Delta G values for the mutations in partially buried beta-strands generated by the structural training dataset from PISCES gave a correlation of 0.84 without performing the Gaussian apodization of the torsion angle distribution. After the Gaussian apodization, the correlation increased to 0.92 and prediction accuracy increased from 80% to 88.89% respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These findings were useful for the optimization of the Melo-Feytmans atom classification system and implementing them to develop the statistical potentials. It was also significant that the prediction efficiency of mutations in the partially buried beta-strands improves with the help of Gaussian apodization of the torsion angle distribution. All these comparisons and optimization techniques demonstrate their advantages as well as the restrictions for the development of the prediction model. These findings will be quite helpful not only for the protein stability prediction, but also for various structure solutions in future.
authors: Cologne University Bioinformatics Center, International Max Planck Research School, Cologne, Germany. parthi@uni-koeln.de
authors: Vijaya
authors: V
authors: Parthiban
authors: M Michael
authors: MM
authors: Gromiha
authors: Madenhalli
authors: M
authors: Abhinandan
authors: Dietmar
authors: D
authors: Schomburg
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D019295:Computational Biology; D008958:Models, Molecular; D016011:Normal Distribution; D017354:Point Mutation; D011487:Protein Conformation; D017510:Protein Folding; D017433:Protein Structure, Secondary; D011506:Proteins / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000235:genetics*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
chemical_list: D011506:Proteins
references: Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2000 Apr;10(2):139-45
references: 10753811
references: Proteins. 2007 Jan 1;66(1):41-52
references: 17068801
references: J Mol Biol. 2002 Jul 5;320(2):369-87
references: 12079393
references: J Mol Biol. 2002 Aug 9;321(2):285-96
references: 12144785
references: Bioinformatics. 2003 Aug 12;19(12):1589-91
references: 12912846
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jan 1;32(Database issue):D189-92
references: 14681391
references: Protein Sci. 2004 Feb;13(2):391-9
references: 14739324
references: J Mol Biol. 2004 Mar 5;336(5):1223-38
references: 15037081
references: Bioinformatics. 2004 Aug 4;20 Suppl 1:i63-8
references: 15262782
references: Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2004 Oct;86(2):235-77
references: 15288760
references: Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1995 Feb;5(1):79-84
references: 7773750
references: J Mol Biol. 1997 Mar 21;267(1):207-22
references: 9096219
references: J Mol Biol. 1998 Feb 6;275(5):895-916
references: 9480776
references: J Mol Biol. 1998 Apr 17;277(5):1141-52
references: 9571028
references: Proteins. 1998 Jul 1;32(1):111-27
references: 9672047
references: Nat Struct Biol. 1998 Aug;5(8):721-9
references: 9699637
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Jan 1;27(1):286-8
references: 9847203
references: J Mol Biol. 1999 Jan 29;285(4):1711-33
references: 9917407
references: Genome Inform. 2004;15(1):160-9
references: 15712119
references: J Med Chem. 2005 Apr 7;48(7):2325-35
references: 15801826
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Jul 1;33(Web Server issue):W306-10
references: 15980478
references: Protein Sci. 2005 Oct;14(10):2682-92
references: 16155198
references: Bioinformatics. 2005 Sep 1;21 Suppl 2:ii54-8
references: 16204125
references: Proteins. 2006 Mar 1;62(4):1125-32
references: 16372356
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jul 1;34(Web Server issue):W239-42
references: 16845001
references: Protein Eng. 2000 Dec;13(12):849-56
references: 11239084