Structure prediction search methods

Building sequence profiles or Hidden Markov Models to perform more sensitive homology searches. A sequence profile contains information about the variability of every sequence position, improving structure prediction methods (secondary structure prediction). Sequence profile searches have become readily available through the introduction of PsiBLAST [4]... 

The most serious problem with MM as a method to predict molecular structure is convergence to a false, rather than the global minimum in the Born-Oppenheimer surface. The mathematical problem is essentially still unsolved, but several conformational searching methods for approaching the global minimum, and based on either systematic or random searches have been developed. These searches work well for small to medium-sized molecules. The most popular of these techniques that simulates excitation to surmount potential barriers, has become known as Molecular Dynamics [112]. 

Evaluation of protein sequence analysis methods based on the use of PSSMs in benchmarking experiments and in a number of test cases shows that these methods are capable of systematically detecting relationships between proteins that previously have been deemed tractable only at the structure-comparison level. Clearly, however, there is still a lot of room for improvement, as many automated procedures missed subtle connections that subsequendy have been revealed on a case-by-case basis, in part thanks to a careful choice of starting points for the PSSM construction. An exhaustive exploration of the sequence space by recursive iterative searching is likely to yield additional, on many occasions unexpected, links between proteins and, in particular, is expected to increase the rate of structure prediction. 

The final method of RNA structure prediction, empirical algorithms, are also analogous to primary-structure motif detection methods. Known RNA structural motifs are extracted from structural databases, and the primary-structure patterns underlying these motifs are identified. Novel RNA sequences are then scanned for these primary-structure motifs much like a novel protein sequence might be scanned for CDs. In essence, these methods search the primary structure of sequences for conserved motifs that indicate secondary structure. One of the most flexible and powerful empirical tools is RNAMotif, which is freely available for download, but does not have an associated web-server (23). 

The prediction of the secondary structures can be made by the structure similarity search of PDB collection at the site. Several servers provide such prediction method. The Jpred, which aligns the query sequence against PDB library, can be accessed at http //jura.ebi.ac.uk 8888/index.html. To predict the secondary structures, however, check Bypass the current Brookhaven Protein Database box and then click Run Secondary Structure Prediction on the home page of Jped to open the query page (Figure 12.10). Upload the sequence file via browser or paste the query sequence into the sequence box. Enter your e-mail address (optional) and click the Run Secondary Structure Prediction button. The results with the consensus structures are returned either online (linked file) or via e-mail (if e-mail address is entered). 

Abstract Methods, evolutionary and systematic search approaches, and applications of crystal structure prediction of closest-packed and framework materials are reviewed. Strategies include developing better cost functions, used to assess the quality of the candidate structures that are generated, and ways to reduce the set of candidate structures to be assessed. The crystallographic coordinates for new materials, available only as a powder sample, are often intractable from diffraction data alone. In recent years, steady progress has been made in the ability to solve previously unknown crystal structures of such compounds, the generation of known structures (inferring more confidence in such approaches) and the prediction of hypothetical yet-to-be-synthesised structures. 

This methodology has been used to predict the structure of loops of helical-bundle proteins, given the positions of the connection to the helices (372). Because of the uncertainties in secondary structure predictions that are used as inputs to constrain the search, any single prediction of the method must be viewed with skepticism. Development of scoring functions that discriminate between alternative models at the Ca level of resolution would complement this approach. 

In this paper, we detail the steps needed to obtain a SAR. Beyond the choice of an activity-representing variable, which is not discussed here. SAR search requires the choice of a structural variable weU-suited to prediction and the choice of a precise relationship search method. We show the impact of the DARC/PELCO choices in evaluating and optimizing prediction reliability. 

Homology-based protein structure prediction methods are the methods of choice, in practice. The reason is that the number of protein folds occurring in nature is much smaller than the number of protein sequences, as nature conserves successful structural architectures much more than the exact protein sequence. On the sequence level much variation is found in orthol-ogous proteins from different organisms with same structure and function. Thus, if we are looking for a fold of a natural protein, it is much more economical to test the limited set of folds realized by nature than to search in an astronomically large space of potential protein structures. 

---