Computational modeling of protein mutant stability: analysis and optimization of statistical potentials and structural features reveal insights into prediction model development.
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.
Parthiban
Vijaya
V
Cologne University Bioinformatics Center, International Max Planck Research School, Cologne, Germany. parthi@uni-koeln.de
Gromiha
M Michael
MM
Abhinandan
Madenhalli
M
Schomburg
Dietmar
D
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
D011506:Proteins
Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2000 Apr;10(2):139-45
10753811
Proteins. 2007 Jan 1;66(1):41-52
17068801
J Mol Biol. 2002 Jul 5;320(2):369-87
12079393
J Mol Biol. 2002 Aug 9;321(2):285-96
12144785
Bioinformatics. 2003 Aug 12;19(12):1589-91
12912846
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jan 1;32(Database issue):D189-92
14681391
Protein Sci. 2004 Feb;13(2):391-9
14739324
J Mol Biol. 2004 Mar 5;336(5):1223-38
15037081
Bioinformatics. 2004 Aug 4;20 Suppl 1:i63-8
15262782
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2004 Oct;86(2):235-77
15288760
Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1995 Feb;5(1):79-84
7773750
J Mol Biol. 1997 Mar 21;267(1):207-22
9096219
J Mol Biol. 1998 Feb 6;275(5):895-916
9480776
J Mol Biol. 1998 Apr 17;277(5):1141-52
9571028
Proteins. 1998 Jul 1;32(1):111-27
9672047
Nat Struct Biol. 1998 Aug;5(8):721-9
9699637
Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Jan 1;27(1):286-8
9847203
J Mol Biol. 1999 Jan 29;285(4):1711-33
9917407
Genome Inform. 2004;15(1):160-9
15712119
J Med Chem. 2005 Apr 7;48(7):2325-35
15801826
Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Jul 1;33(Web Server issue):W306-10
15980478
Protein Sci. 2005 Oct;14(10):2682-92
16155198
Bioinformatics. 2005 Sep 1;21 Suppl 2:ii54-8
16204125
Proteins. 2006 Mar 1;62(4):1125-32
16372356
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jul 1;34(Web Server issue):W239-42
16845001
Protein Eng. 2000 Dec;13(12):849-56
11239084