1999
DOI: 10.1110/ps.8.2.361
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pair potentials for protein folding: Choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes

Abstract: We examine the similarities and differences between two widely used knowledge-based potentials, which are expressed as contact matrices (consisting of 210 elements) that gives a scale for interaction energies between the naturally occurring amino acid residues. These are the Miyazawa-Jernigan contact interaction matrix M and the potential matrix S derived by Skolnick J et al., 1997, Protein Sci 6:676-688. Although the correlation between the two matrices is good, there is a relatively large dispersion between … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
327
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 329 publications
(343 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
6
327
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The power-law dependence is conserved even for the complex topology of a yeast protein interaction network fragment (14) (Fig. 3D) and for networks optimized with alternative energy functions (29,30). A power-law decrease was also found in lattice-model calculations of the energy gaps separating the native and the most-competitive nonnative structures of proteins as a function of their length, reflecting a similar increase in the combinatorial possibilities for nonspecific interactions (22).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…The power-law dependence is conserved even for the complex topology of a yeast protein interaction network fragment (14) (Fig. 3D) and for networks optimized with alternative energy functions (29,30). A power-law decrease was also found in lattice-model calculations of the energy gaps separating the native and the most-competitive nonnative structures of proteins as a function of their length, reflecting a similar increase in the combinatorial possibilities for nonspecific interactions (22).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…The α-helical secondary structure is stabilized by interactions which mimic (i, i + 4) hydrogen bonding (32). We use residuedependent energies for tertiary interactions (30). Simulations are carried out using an overdamped Brownian dynamics algorithm (33).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the residue level, the strength of pairwise interactions could be determined statistically based on their occurrences in native structures, and are stored in the form of matrix [72][73][74][80][81][82]. The features of proteins have already been implicitly included.…”
Section: Simplification Based On Pairwise Interaction Between Amino Amentioning
confidence: 99%