1 / 29

Using Motion Planning to Map Protein Folding Landscapes

Using Motion Planning to Map Protein Folding Landscapes. Nancy M. Amato Parasol Lab,Texas A&M University. Paper Folding via Motion Planning. Polyhedron 25 dof (10 samples, 2 sec). Soccer Ball 31 dof (10 samples, 6 sec). Periscope 11 dof (450 samples, 6 sec). Box 12 (5) dof

shaine-cunningham
Download Presentation

Using Motion Planning to Map Protein Folding Landscapes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Motion Planning to Map Protein Folding Landscapes Nancy M. Amato Parasol Lab,Texas A&M University

  2. Paper Folding via Motion Planning Polyhedron 25 dof (10 samples, 2 sec) Soccer Ball 31 dof (10 samples, 6 sec) Periscope 11 dof (450 samples, 6 sec) Box 12 (5) dof (218 samples, 3 sec)

  3. Protein Folding via Motion PlanningFolding Paths for Proteins G & L Protein L Protein G

  4. Different from protein structure prediction • Predict native structure given amino acid sequence • Native 3D structure is important b/c influences function TTCCPSIVARSNFNVCRLPGTPEALCATYTGCIIIPGATCPGDYAN Protein Folding • We are interested in the folding process • how the protein folds to its native structure

  5. prion protein normal - misfold Why Study Folding Pathways? • Importance of Studying Pathways • insight into protein interactions & function • may lead to better structure prediction algorithms • Diseases such as Alzheimer’s & Mad Cow related to misfolded proteins • Computational Techniques Critical • Hard to study experimentally (happens too fast) • Can study folding for thousands of already solved structures • Help guide/design future experiments

  6. Configuration space Potential Folding Landscapes • Each conformation has a potential energy • Native state is global minimum • Set of all conformations forms landscape • Shape of landscape reflects folding behavior Native state Different proteins  different landscapes  different folding behaviors

  7. Configuration space Potential A conformation Using Motion Planning to Map Folding Landscapes [RECOMB 01,02, 04; PSB 03] • Use Probabilistic Roadmap (PRM) method from motion planning to build roadmap • Roadmap approximates the folding landscape • Characterizes the main features of landscape • Can extract multiple folding pathways from roadmap • Compute population kinetics for roadmap Native state

  8. Related Work • Other PRM-Based approaches for studying molecular motions • Other work on protein folding ([Apaydin et al, ICRA’01,RECOMB’02]) • Ligand binding ([Singh, Latombe, Brutlag, ISMB’99], [Bayazit, Song, Amato, ICRA’01]) • RNA Folding (Tang, Kirkpatrick, Thomas, Song, Amato [RECOMB 04])

  9. Primary Structure TTCCPSIVARSNFNVCRLPGTPEALCATYTGCIIIPGATCPGDYAN Secondary Structure Tertiary Structure variable loops + + = • We model an amino acid with 2 torsional degrees of freedom: • Standard practice by biochemists  sheet a helix Modeling Proteins One amino acid

  10. Roadmap Construction: Node Generation • Sample using known native state • sample around it, gradually grow out • generate conformations by randomly selecting phi/psi angles • Criterion for accepting a node: • Compute potential energy E of each node and retain it with probability: Native state N Denser distribution around native state

  11. Ramachandran Plots for Different Sampling Techniques Uniform sampling Gaussian sampling Iterative Gaussian sampling

  12. Distributions for different types:Potential Energy vs. RMSD for roadmap nodes all alpha alpha + beta all beta

  13. 1. Find k closest nodes for each roadmap node (k=20) • use Euclidean distance 2. Assign edge weight to reflect energetic feasibility: u c1 c2 c3 cn v … lower weight  more feasible 1 13 152 681 Roadmap ConstructionNode Connection Edge weight w(u,v) = f(E(C1), E(C2),… E(Cn)) Native state

  14. PRMs for Protein Folding: Key Issues • Energy Functions • The degree to which the roadmap accurately reflects folding landscape depends on the quality of energy calculation. • We use our own coarse potential (fast) and well known all atom potential (slow) • Validation • In [ICRA’01, RECOMB ’01, JCB ’02], results validated with experimental results [Li & Woodward 1999].

  15. One Folding Path of Protein AA nice movie…. But so what? B domain of staphylococcal protein A Ribbon Model Space-fill Model

  16. Roadmap AnalysisSecondary Structure Formation Order [RECOMB’01, JCB’02, RECOMB’02, JCB’03, PSB’03] Order in which secondary structure forms during folding hairpin 1,2 helix Q: Which forms first?

  17. 10 time step at which each contact forms 30 20 40 50 native contact Formation Time Calculation • Secondary structure has formed when x% of the native contacts are present • native contact: less than 7 A between Ca atoms in native state If we pick x% as 60%, then at time step 30, three contacts present, structure considered formed

  18. Contact Map A contact map is a triangular matrix which identifies all the native contacts among residues

  19. Contact Maps

  20. 135 142 (IV:  1-4)   1-2 1-4 140 143 114 140 143 140 141 142 144 139 143 143 131  3-4 Secondary Structure Formation Order:Timed Contact Map of a Path[JCB’02] residue # protein G (domain B1) residue #  Formation order: ,  3-4,  1-2,  1-4 Average T = 142

  21. 135 142 (IV:  1-4)   1-2 1-4 140 143 114 140 143 140 141 142 144 139 143 143 131  3-4 Secondary Structure Formation Order:Timed Contact Map of a Path[JCB’02] residue # protein G (domain B1) residue #  Formation order: ,  3-4,  1-2,  1-4 Average T = 142

  22. Secondary Structure Formation Order:Validation Sample Summary

  23. Detailed Study of Proteins G & L[PSB’03] Protein L Protein G Protein G • Protein G & Protein L • Similar structure (1 helix, 2 beta strands), but 15% sequence identity • Fold differently • Protein G: helix, beta 3-4, beta1-2, beta 1-4 [Kuszewski et al 1994, Orban et al. 1995] • Protein L: helix, beta 1-2, beta 3-4, beta 1-4 [Yi & Baker 1996, Yi et al 1997] • Can our approach detect the difference? Yes! • 75% Protein G paths & 80% Protein L paths have “right” order • Increases to 90% & 100%, resp., when use all atom potential

  24. Helix and Beta StrandsCoarse Potential [PSB’03] • Protein G: • Protein L: (b3- b4 forms first) over 2k paths analyzed b2 b1 b4 b3 (b1- b2 forms first) over 2k paths b2 b1 b4 b3

  25. Analyze First x% Contacts Contacts SS Formation Order 20 40 60 80 100 all a b1 b2 b3 b4 b1 b4 100 100 100 100 100 , - , - , - a b1 b2 b3 b4 b1 b4 99 99 99 99 , - , - , - 100 hydrophobic a b3 b4 b1 b2 b1 b4 1 0 1 1 1 , - , - , - Helix and Beta StrandsAll-atom Potential • Protein G: • Protein L: (b3- b4 forms first) Analyze First x% Contacts b2 Contacts SS Formation Order 20 40 60 80 100 b1 a b b4 b1 b2 b1 b4 79 79 74 82 90 , 3- , - , - all a b1 b2 b3 b4 b1 b4 21 21 26 18 10 , - , - , - b4 a b b4 b1 b2 b1 b4 77 74 71 77 81 , 3- , - , - hydrophobic a b b2 b3 b4 b1 b4 23 26 29 23 , 1- , - , - 19 b3 (b1- b2 forms first) b2 b1 b4 b3

  26. Summary: PRM-Based Protein Folding • PRM roadmaps approximate energy landscapes • Efficiently produce multiple folding pathways • Secondary structure formation order (e.g. G and L) • better than trajectory-based simulation methods, such as Monte Carlo, molecular dynamics • Provide a good way to study folding kinetics • multiple folding kinetics in same landscape (roadmap) • natural way to study the statistical behavior of folding • more realistic than statistical models (e.g. Lattice models, Baker’s model PNAS’99, Munoz’s model, PNAS’99)

  27. RNA Folding ResultsX. Tang, B. Kirkpatrick, S. Thomas, G. Song[RECOMB’04 ] • RNA energy landscape can be completely described by huge roadmaps. • Heuristics are used to approximate energy landscape using small roadmaps. • Our roadmaps contain many folding pathways. Energy profile Folding Steps • Population kinetics analysis on the roadmaps shows that heuristic 1 can efficiently describe the energy landscape using a small subset of nodes Map2 (Heuristic 1): 15 Nodes Map3 (Heuristic 2): 33 Nodes Map1 (Complete): 142 Nodes Population Population Population Folding Steps Folding Steps Folding Steps

  28. Ligand Binding[IEEE ICRA`01] • Docking: Find a configuration of the ligand near the protein that satisfies geometric, electro-static and chemical constraints • PRM Approach(Singh, Latombe, Brutlag, 1999) • rapidly explores high dimensional space • We use OBPRM: better suited for generating conformations in binding site (near protein surface) • Haptic User interaction • haptics (sense of touch) helps user understand molecular interaction • User assists planner by suggesting promising regions, and planner will post-process and ‘improve’

  29. Contact Information For more information, check out our website: http://parasol.tamu.edu/~amato/ Credits: My students: Guang Song (now a Postdoc at Iowa State), Shawna Thomas, Xinyu Tang & Ken Dill (UCSF) and Marty Scholtz (Texas A&M)

More Related