Abstract
The ability of computational protein design (CPD) to identify protein sequences possessing desired characteristics in vast sequence spaces makes it a highly valuable tool in the protein engineering toolbox. CPD calculations are typically performed using a single-state design (SSD) approach in which amino-acid sequences are optimized on a single protein structure. Although SSD has been successfully applied to the design of numerous protein functions and folds, the approach can lead to the incorrect rejection of desirable sequences because of the combined use of a fixed protein backbone template and a set of rigid rotamers. This fixed backbone approximation can be addressed by using multistate design (MSD) with backbone ensembles. MSD improves the quality of predicted sequences by using ensembles approximating conformational flexibility as input templates instead of a single fixed protein structure. In this chapter, we present a step-by-step guide to the implementation and analysis of MSD calculations with backbone ensembles. Specifically, we describe ensemble generation with the PertMin protocol, execution of MSD calculations for recapitulation of Streptococcal protein G domain β1 mutant stability, and analysis of computational predictions by sequence binning. Furthermore, we provide a comparison between MSD and SSD calculation results and discuss the benefits of multistate approaches to CPD.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Koga N, Tatsumi-Koga R, Liu G, Xiao R, Acton TB, Montelione GT, Baker D (2012) Principles for designing ideal protein structures. Nature 491(7423):222–227. doi:10.1038/nature11600
Murphy GS, Sathyamoorthy B, Der BS, Machius MC, Pulavarti SV, Szyperski T, Kuhlman B (2015) Computational de novo design of a four-helix bundle protein-DND_4HB. Protein Sci 24(4):434–445. doi:10.1002/pro.2577
Kuhlman B, Dantas G, Ireton GC, Varani G, Stoddard BL, Baker D (2003) Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 302(5649):1364–1368. doi:10.1126/science.1089427
Privett HK, Kiss G, Lee TM, Blomberg R, Chica RA, Thomas LM, Hilvert D, Houk KN, Mayo SL (2012) Iterative approach to computational enzyme design. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(10):3790–3795, doi:1118082108 [pii] 10.1073/pnas.1118082108
Kapp GT, Liu S, Stein A, Wong DT, Remenyi A, Yeh BJ, Fraser JS, Taunton J, Lim WA, Kortemme T (2012) Control of protein signaling using a computationally designed GTPase/GEF orthogonal pair. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(14):5277–5282. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114487109
Siegel JB, Zanghellini A, Lovick HM, Kiss G, Lambert AR, St Clair JL, Gallaher JL, Hilvert D, Gelb MH, Stoddard BL, Houk KN, Michael FE, Baker D (2010) Computational design of an enzyme catalyst for a stereoselective bimolecular Diels-Alder reaction. Science 329(5989):309–313. doi:10.1126/science.1190239
Frey KM, Georgiev I, Donald BR, Anderson AC (2010) Predicting resistance mutations using protein design algorithms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(31):13707–13712. doi:10.1073/pnas.1002162107
Dahiyat BI (1999) In silico design for protein stabilization. Curr Opin Biotechnol 10(4):387–390. doi:10.1016/S0958-1669(99)80070-6
Kuhlman B, Choi EJ, Guntas G (2009) Future challenges of computational protein design. In: Park SJ, Cochran JR (eds) Protein engineering and design. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. doi:10.1201/9781420076592.ch18
Kellogg EH, Leaver-Fay A, Baker D (2011) Role of conformational sampling in computing mutation-induced changes in protein structure and stability. Proteins 79(3):830–838. doi:10.1002/prot.22921
Dahiyat BI, Mayo SL (1997) Probing the role of packing specificity in protein design. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94(19):10172–10177
Grigoryan G, Ochoa A, Keating AE (2007) Computing van der Waals energies in the context of the rotamer approximation. Proteins 68(4):863–878. doi:10.1002/prot.21470
Murphy GS, Mills JL, Miley MJ, Machius M, Szyperski T, Kuhlman B (2012) Increasing sequence diversity with flexible backbone protein design: the complete redesign of a protein hydrophobic core. Structure 20(6):1086–1096. doi:10.1016/j.str.2012.03.026
Ollikainen N, Smith CA, Fraser JS, Kortemme T (2013) Flexible backbone sampling methods to model and design protein alternative conformations. Methods Enzymol 523:61–85. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394292-0.00004-7
Smith CA, Kortemme T (2011) Predicting the tolerated sequences for proteins and protein interfaces using RosettaBackrub flexible backbone design. PLoS One 6(7), e20451. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020451
Wang C, Schueler-Furman O, Baker D (2005) Improved side-chain modeling for protein-protein docking. Protein Sci 14(5):1328–1339. doi:10.1110/ps.041222905
Borgo B, Havranek JJ (2012) Automated selection of stabilizing mutations in designed and natural proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(5):1494–1499. doi:10.1073/pnas.1115172109
Gainza P, Roberts KE, Donald BR (2012) Protein design using continuous rotamers. PLoS Comput Biol 8(1), e1002335. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002335
Allen BD, Nisthal A, Mayo SL (2010) Experimental library screening demonstrates the successful application of computational protein design to large structural ensembles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(46):19838–19843. doi:10.1073/pnas.1012985107
Davey JA, Chica RA (2014) Improving the accuracy of protein stability predictions with multistate design using a variety of backbone ensembles. Proteins 82(5):771–784. doi:10.1002/prot.24457
Allen BD, Mayo SL (2010) An efficient algorithm for multistate protein design based on FASTER. J Comput Chem 31(5):904–916. doi:10.1002/jcc.21375
Leaver-Fay A, Jacak R, Stranges PB, Kuhlman B (2011) A generic program for multistate protein design. PLoS One 6(7), e20937. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020937
Yanover C, Fromer M, Shifman JM (2007) Dead-end elimination for multistate protein design. J Comput Chem 28(13):2122–2129. doi:10.1002/jcc.20661
Howell SC, Inampudi KK, Bean DP, Wilson CJ (2014) Understanding thermal adaptation of enzymes through the multistate rational design and stability prediction of 100 adenylate kinases. Structure 22(2):218–229. doi:10.1016/j.str.2013.10.019
Babor M, Mandell DJ, Kortemme T (2011) Assessment of flexible backbone protein design methods for sequence library prediction in the therapeutic antibody Herceptin-HER2 interface. Protein Sci 20(6):1082–1089. doi:10.1002/pro.632
Williams CI, Feher M (2008) The effect of numerical error on the reproducibility of molecular geometry optimizations. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22(1):39–51. doi:10.1007/s10822-007-9154-7
Chemical Computing Group Inc (2012) Molecular operating environment (MOE) 2012, 14th edn. Chemical Computing Group Inc, Montreal, QC
Chica RA, Moore MM, Allen BD, Mayo SL (2010) Generation of longer emission wavelength red fluorescent proteins using computationally designed libraries. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(47):20257–20262. doi:10.1073/pnas.1013910107
Gallagher T, Alexander P, Bryan P, Gilliland GL (1994) Two crystal structures of the B1 immunoglobulin-binding domain of streptococcal protein G and comparison with NMR. Biochemistry 33(15):4721–4729
Leach AR (1998) Molecular modelling: principles and applications. Longman, Harlow
Nash SG (2000) A survey of truncated-Newton methods. J Comput Appl Math 124(1–2):45–59. doi:10.1016/S0377-0427(00)00426-X
Dunbrack RL, Cohen FE (1997) Bayesian statistical analysis of protein side-chain rotamer preferences. Protein Sci 6(8):1661–1681
Mayo SL, Olafson BD, Goddard WA (1990) Dreiding – a generic force-field for molecular simulations. J Phys Chem 94(26):8897–8909. doi:10.1021/J100389a010
Lazaridis T, Karplus M (1999) Effective energy function for proteins in solution. Proteins 35(2):133–152. doi:10.1002/(Sici)1097-0134(19990501)35:2<133::Aid-Prot1>3.0.Co;2-N
Street AG, Mayo SL (1998) Pairwise calculation of protein solvent-accessible surface areas. Fold Des 3(4):253–258. doi:10.1016/S1359-0278(98)00036-4
Desmet J, Spriet J, Lasters I (2002) Fast and accurate side-chain topology and energy refinement (FASTER) as a new method for protein structure optimization. Proteins 48(1):31–43. doi:10.1002/Prot.10131
Allen BD, Mayo SL (2006) Dramatic performance enhancements for the FASTER optimization algorithm. J Comput Chem 27(10):1071–1075. doi:10.1002/jcc.20420
Crooks GE, Hon G, Chandonia JM, Brenner SE (2004) WebLogo: a sequence logo generator. Genome Res 14(6):1188–1190. doi:10.1101/Gr.849004
Labute P (2009) Protonate3D: assignment of ionization states and hydrogen coordinates to macromolecular structures. Proteins 75(1):187–205. doi:10.1002/Prot.22234
Word JM, Lovell SC, Richardson JS, Richardson DC (1999) Asparagine and glutamine: using hydrogen atom contacts in the choice of side-chain amide orientation. J Mol Biol 285(4):1735–1747. doi:10.1006/jmbi.1998.2401
Davis IW, Leaver-Fay A, Chen VB, Block JN, Kapral GJ, Wang X, Murray LW, Arendall WB III, Snoeyink J, Richardson JS, Richardson DC (2007) MolProbity: all-atom contacts and structure validation for proteins and nucleic acids. Nucleic Acids Res 35((Web Server issue)):375–383. doi:10.1093/nar/gkm216
Davey JA (2011) On the energy minimization of large molecules, M.Sc. thesis. Carleton University, Canada, Ottawa, ON
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Davey, J.A., Chica, R.A. (2017). Multistate Computational Protein Design with Backbone Ensembles. In: Samish, I. (eds) Computational Protein Design. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1529. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6637-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6637-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6635-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6637-0
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols