Comparative protein structure modeling predicts the three-dimensional structure of a given protein sequence (target) based primarily on its alignment to one or more proteins of known structure (templates). The prediction process consists of fold assignment, target-template alignment, model building, and model evaluation. This unit describes how to calculate comparative models using the program MODELLER and how to use the ModBase database of such models, and discusses all four steps of comparative modeling, frequently observed errors, and some applications. Modeling lactate dehydrogenase from Trichomonas vaginalis (TvLDH) is described as an example. The download and installation of the MODELLER software is also described.

Genome sequencing projects have resulted in a rapid increase in the number of known protein sequences. In contrast, only about one-hundredth of these sequences have been characterized at atomic resolution using experimental structure determination methods. Computational protein structure modeling techniques have the potential to bridge this sequence-structure gap. In this chapter, we present an example that illustrates the use of MODELLER to construct a comparative model for a protein with unknown structure. Automation of a similar protocol has resulted in models of useful accuracy for domains in more than half of all known protein sequences.

Functional characterization of a protein sequence is one of the most frequent problems in biology. This task is usually facilitated by accurate three-dimensional (3-D) structure of the studied protein.In the absence of an experimentally determined structure, comparative or homology modeling can sometimes provide a useful 3-D model for a protein that is related to at least one known protein structure. Comparative modeling predicts the 3-D structure of a given protein sequence (target) based primarily on its alignment to one or more proteins of known structure (templates). The prediction process consists of fold assignment, target-template alignment, model building, and model evaluation. This unit describes how to calculate comparative models using the program MODELLER and discusses all four steps of comparative modeling, frequently observed errors, and some applications. Modeling lactate dehydrogenase from Trichomonas vaginalis (TvLDH) is described as an example. The download and installation of the MODELLER software is also described. KeywordsModeller; protein structure; comparative modeling; structure prediction; protein fold Functional characterization of a protein sequence is one of the most frequent problems in biology. This task is usually facilitated by an accurate three-dimensional (3-D) structure of the studied protein. In the absence of an experimentally determined structure, comparative or homology modeling often provides a useful 3-D model for a protein that is related to at least one known protein structure (Marti-Renom et al., 2000;Fiser, 2004;Misura and Baker, 2005;Petrey and Honig, 2005;Misura et al., 2006). Comparative modeling predicts the 3-D structure of a given protein sequence (target) based primarily on its alignment to one or more proteins of known structure (templates). NOTE:Further help for all the described commands and parameters may be obtained from the MODELLER Web site (see Internet Resources). While automation makes comparative modeling accessible to both experts and nonspecialists, manual intervention is generally still needed to maximize the accuracy of the models in the difficult cases. A number of resources useful in comparative modeling are listed in Table 5.6.1. NIH Public AccessThis unit describes how to calculate comparative models using the program MODELLER (Basic Protocol). The Basic Protocol goes on to discuss all four steps of comparative modeling ( Figure 5.6.1), frequently observed errors, and some applications. The Support Protocol describes how to download and install MODELLER. BASIC PROTOCOL MODELING LACTATE DEHYDROGENASE FROM TRICHOMONAS VAGINALIS (TvLDH) BASED ON A SINGLE TEMPLATE USING MODELLERMODELLER is a computer program for comparative protein structure modeling Fiser et al., 2000). In the simplest case, the input is an alignment of a sequence to be modeled with the template structures, the atomic coordinates of the templates, and a simple script file. MODELLER then automatically calculates a model containing all non-hydrogen atoms, within minutes o...

Functional characterization of a protein sequence is one of the most frequent problems in biology. This task is usually facilitated by accurate three-dimensional (3-D) structure of the studied protein. In the absence of an experimentally determined structure, comparative or homology modeling can sometimes provide a useful 3-D model for a protein that is related to at least one known protein structure. Comparative modeling predicts the 3-D structure of a given protein sequence (target) based primarily on its alignment to one or more proteins of known structure (templates). The prediction process consists of fold assignment, target-template alignment, model building, and model evaluation. This unit describes how to calculate comparative models using the program MODELLER and discusses all four steps of comparative modeling, frequently observed errors, and some applications. Modeling lactate dehydrogenase from Trichomonas vaginalis (TvLDH) is described as an example. The download and installation of the MODELLER software is also described.

Genome sequencing projects have resulted in a rapid increase in the number of known protein sequences. In contrast, only about one-hundredth of these sequences have been characterized at atomic resolution using experimental structure determination methods. Computational protein structure modeling techniques have the potential to bridge this sequence-structure gap. In the following chapter, we present an example that illustrates the use of MODELLER to construct a comparative model for a protein with unknown structure. Automation of a similar protocol has resulted in models of useful accuracy for domains in more than half of all known protein sequences.

Two orders of magnitude more protein sequences can be modeled by comparative modeling than have been determined by X-ray crystallography and NMR spectroscopy. Investigators have nevertheless been cautious about using comparative models for ligand discovery because of concerns about model errors. We suggest how to exploit comparative models for molecular screens, based on docking against a wide range of crystallographic structures and comparative models with known ligands. To account for the variation in the ligand-binding pocket as it binds different ligands, we calculate "consensus" enrichment by ranking each library compound by its best docking score against all available comparative models and/or modeling templates. For the majority of the targets, the consensus enrichment for multiple models was better or comparable to that of the holo and apo Xray structures. Even for single models, the models are significantly more enriching than the template structure if the template is paralogous and shares more than 25% sequence identity with the target.

Summary A major challenge in structural biology is to determine the configuration of domains and proteins in multi-domain proteins and assemblies, respectively. To maximize the accuracy and precision of these models, all available data should be considered. Small angle x-ray scattering (SAXS) efficiently provides low-resolution experimental data about the shapes of proteins and their assemblies. Thus, we integrated SAXS profiles into our software for modeling proteins and their assemblies by satisfaction of spatial restraints. Specifically, we model the quaternary structures of multidomain proteins with structurally defined rigid domains as well as quaternary structures of binary complexes of structurally defined rigid proteins. In addition to SAXS profiles and the component structures, we employ stereochemical restraints and an atomic distance-dependent statistical potential. The scoring function is optimized by a biased Monte Carlo protocol, including quasi-Newton and simulated annealing schemes. The final prediction corresponds to the best scoring solution in the largest cluster of many independently calculated solutions. To quantify how well the quaternary structures are determined based on their SAXS profiles, we used a benchmark of 12 simulated examples as well as an experimental SAXS profile of the homo-tetramer D-xylose isomerase. Optimization of the SAXS-dependent scoring function generally results in accurate models, if sufficiently precise approximations for the constituent rigid bodies are available; otherwise, the best scoring models can have significant errors. Thus, SAXS profiles can play a useful role in the structural characterization of proteins and assemblies, if they are combined with additional data and used judiciously. Our integration of a SAXS profile into modeling by satisfaction of spatial restraints will facilitate further integration of different kinds of data for structure determination of proteins and their assemblies.

ModBase (http://salilab.org/modbase) is a database of annotated comparative protein structure models. The models are calculated by ModPipe, an automated modeling pipeline that relies primarily on Modeller for fold assignment, sequence-structure alignment, model building and model assessment (http://salilab.org/modeller/). ModBase currently contains almost 30 million reliable models for domains in 4.7 million unique protein sequences. ModBase allows users to compute or update comparative models on demand, through an interface to the ModWeb modeling server (http://salilab.org/modweb). ModBase models are also available through the Protein Model Portal (http://www.proteinmodelportal.org/). Recently developed associated resources include the AllosMod server for modeling ligand-induced protein dynamics (http://salilab.org/allosmod), the AllosMod-FoXS server for predicting a structural ensemble that fits an SAXS profile (http://salilab.org/allosmod-foxs), the FoXSDock server for protein–protein docking filtered by an SAXS profile (http://salilab.org/foxsdock), the SAXS Merge server for automatic merging of SAXS profiles (http://salilab.org/saxsmerge) and the Pose & Rank server for scoring protein–ligand complexes (http://salilab.org/poseandrank). In this update, we also highlight two applications of ModBase: a PSI:Biology initiative to maximize the structural coverage of the human alpha-helical transmembrane proteome and a determination of structural determinants of human immunodeficiency virus-1 protease specificity.