Mass & secondary structure propensity of amino acids explain their mutability and evolutionary replacements

Why is an amino acid replacement in a protein accepted during evolution? The answer given by bioinformatics relies on the frequency of change of each amino acid by another one and the propensity of each to remain unchanged. We propose that these replacement rules are recoverable from the secondary structural trends of amino acids. A distance measure between high-resolution Ramachandran distributions reveals that structurally similar residues coincide with those found in substitution matrices such as BLOSUM: Asn Asp, Phe Tyr, Lys Arg, Gln Glu, Ile Val, Met → Leu; with Ala, Cys, His, Gly, Ser, Pro, and Thr, as structurally idiosyncratic residues. We also found a high average correlation (\overline{R} R = 0.85) between thirty amino acid mutability scales and the mutational inertia (I X ), which measures the energetic cost weighted by the number of observations at the most probable amino acid conformation. These results indicate that amino acid substitutions follow two optimally-efficient principles: (a) amino acids interchangeability privileges their secondary structural similarity, and (b) the amino acid mutability depends directly on its biosynthetic energy cost, and inversely with its frequency. These two principles are the underlying rules governing the observed amino acid substitutions. © 2017 The Author(s)

Methods for the refinement of protein structure 3D models

The refinement of predicted 3D protein models is crucial in bringing them closer towards experimental accuracy for further computational studies. Refinement approaches can be divided into two main stages: The sampling and scoring stages. Sampling strategies, such as the popular Molecular Dynamics (MD)-based protocols, aim to generate improved 3D models. However, generating 3D models that are closer to the native structure than the initial model remains challenging, as structural deviations from the native basin can be encountered due to force-field inaccuracies. Therefore, different restraint strategies have been applied in order to avoid deviations away from the native structure. For example, the accurate prediction of local errors and/or contacts in the initial models can be used to guide restraints. MD-based protocols, using physics-based force fields and smart restraints, have made significant progress towards a more consistent refinement of 3D models. The scoring stage, including energy functions and Model Quality Assessment Programs (MQAPs) are also used to discriminate near-native conformations from non-native conformations. Nevertheless, there are often very small differences among generated 3D models in refinement pipelines, which makes model discrimination and selection problematic. For this reason, the identification of the most native-like conformations remains a major challenge