Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T01:30:12.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Protein Tertiary Structure Prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Jin Xiong
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access

Summary

One of the most important scientific achievements of the twentieth century was the discovery of the DNA double helical structure by Watson and Crick in 1953. Strictly speaking, the work was the result of a three-dimensional modeling conducted partly based on data obtained from x-ray diffraction of DNA and partly based on chemical bonding information established in stereochemistry. It was clear at the time that the x-ray data obtained by their colleague Rosalind Franklin were not sufficient to resolve the DNA structure. Watson and Crick conducted one of the first-known ab initio modeling of a biological macromolecule, which has subsequently been proven to be essentially correct. Their work provided great insight into the mechanism of genetic inheritance and paved the way for a revolution in modern biology. The example demonstrates that structural prediction is a powerful tool to understand the functions of biological macromolecules at the atomic level.

We now know that the DNA structure, a double helix, is rather invariable regardless of sequence variations. Although there is little need today to determine or model DNA structures of varying sequences, there is still a real need to model protein structures individually. This is because protein structures vary depending on the sequences. Another reason is the much slower rate of structure determination by x-ray crystallography or NMR spectroscopy compared to gene sequence generation from genomic studies. Consequently, the gap between protein sequence information and protein structural information is increasing rapidly. Protein structure prediction aims to reduce this sequence–structure gap.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Lazikani, B., Jung, J., Xiang, Z., and Honig, B. 2001. Protein structure prediction. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5:51–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, D., and Sali, A. 2001. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science. 294:93–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonneau, R., and Baker, D. 2001. Ab initio protein structure prediction: Progress and prospects. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 30:173–89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourne, P. E. 2003. “CSAP and CAFASP experiments and their findings.” In Structural Bioinformatics, edited by Bourne, P. E. and Weissig, H., 501–7. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-LissCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chivian, D., Robertson, T., Bonneau, R., and Baker, D. 2003. “Ab initio methods.” In Structural Bioinformatics, edited by Bourne, P. E. and Weissig, H., 547–56. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-LissCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Y. J., and Cottage, A. 2003. Bioinformatics methods to predict protein structure and function. A practical approach. Mol Biotechnol. 23:139–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fetrow, J. S., Giammona, A., Kolinski, A., and Skolnick, J. 2002. The protein folding problem: A biophysical enigma. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 3:329–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, M. J. 2000. Molecular modelling in structural biology. Micron 33:365–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginalski, K., Grishin, N. V., Godzik, A., and Rychlewski, L. 2005. Practical lessons from protein structure prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 33:1874–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godzik, A. 2003. “Fold recognition methods.” In Structural Bioinformatics, edited by Bourne, P. E. and Weissig, H., 525–46. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-LissCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, C., Pogorelov, T. V., and Luthey-Schulten, Z. 2002. Ab initio protein structure prediction. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12:176–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krieger, E., Nabuurs, S. B., and Vriend, G. 2003. “Homology modeling.” In Structural Bioinformatics, edited by Bourne, P. E. and Weissig, H., 509–23. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-LissCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marti-Renom, M. A., Stuart, A. C., Fiser, A., Sanchez, R., Melo, F., and Sali, A. 2000. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 29:291–325CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, D., Xu, Y., and Uberbacher, E. C. 2000. Computational tools for protein modeling. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 1:1–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×