Mar
30
2009
0

Protein-Protein Docking on the rise.

We have recently conducted a poll amongst people interested in learning more about the Rosetta software (as a preliminary step to the Rosetta Academic Training Workshop). One of the questions in that poll was: “Which Rosetta related topics is of the most interest to you?” The results (from ~200 participants) are summarized in the graph below.

 

Interest trends amongst Rosetta users

Interest trends amongst Rosetta users

 

Protein-protein docking was chosen as the topic with the highest interest level, with a slight gap from ab-initio structure prediction and protein-ligand docking. This correlates well with another superficial analysis we made a while back (What’s trendy in structural bioinformatics) in which we showed qualitatively that docking receives the most interest from ‘Cite U Like‘ structural bioinformaticians. It is worth noting that Molecular Dynamics was not included, since Rosetta is not intended for MD simulations.

What is your field in structural bioinformatics? Anyone has more evidence for the increase in interest in protein-protein docking?

Mar
27
2009
18

Bi-weekly Digest 27/03/09

 In this Bi-weekly digest a novel O2 transport protein designed from first principals (on which we’ll elaborate in an upcoming post – stay tuned) and a nice over-representation of Bioinformatics papres. 

(more…)

Mar
24
2009
0

Rare Codons Give Domains Time to Fold

Another great post from “Discount thoughts” reviewing a recent paper from Nature structural and molecular biology. Not all codons are created equal. In bacteria, some codons are found much less frequently than others that represent the same amino acid. The tRNA associated with these “rare codons” is also less abundant than other tRNA, and this means that when a ribosome hits a rare codon, it often has to pause while it waits to encounter a loaded tRNA. Zhang et al. suggests that the slowdown due to rare codons may have a functional advantage in vivo.

The authors used a bioinformatics approach to survey the sequences of bacterial genes, to find clusters of rare codons, so that they could identify patches that would be slow to translate. They found that for proteins longer than about 300 amino acid residues, nearly every transcript contained at least one cluster of slow-translating codons. When the authors used a cell-free E. coli expression system to make some of these proteins and allowed only one round of translation initiation per ribosome, they saw a pattern of translation intermediates that matched the sizes predicted by the location of slow-translating patches.

The authors examined the multi-domain protein SufI. In their prediction of the translation speed, there are four slow spots. Aside from the first one, these appear to correspond to the boundaries of different structural domains in the protein. Experiments with proteases suggested that these domains actually folded during the pauses, as the ribosome-bound translation intermediates were resistant to proteolysis.

Interestingly, when two rare leucine codons were replaced by more common ones (the authors call this SufI D25-28), the whole protein became vulnerable to degradation. Similarly, when extra tRNA for these rare codons was added to the cell-free expression system, the full-length protein became protease-sensitive. This suggests that the slow patches are actually necessary for proper folding of the protein.

It’s often the case that lowering the incubation temperature can improve the expression of certain proteins in E. coli. The authors of this study find that is also true for SufI, as the protease resistance of SufI D25-28 can be restored by lowering the temperature, and thus the overall translation rate. When analogous experiments with SufI D25-28 and tRNA supplementation were carried out in living E. coli, the translocation of SufI into the periplasmic space was reduced by a factor of 10 even though the overall protein concentration was not affected, indicating that the co-translational folding allowed by the rare codons is necessary for proper functioning of the protein in vivo.

Zhang, G., Hubalewska, M., & Ignatova, Z. (2009). Transient ribosomal attenuation coordinates protein synthesis and co-translational folding Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 16 (3), 274-280 DOI: 10.1038/nsmb.1554

Mar
23
2009
3

5 structural search engines – who are your protein’s neighbors?

It is well known that proteins that share high sequence identity usually share the same fold and approximately the same structure, this is the basis for homology modeling. It also well known that some folds contains proteins with very different sequences. These cases pose a problem for sequence based structural alignments and for sequence based search protocols. For that reason, algorithms were devised to quickly and efficiently search (let’s say – the entire PDB) for proteins with a similar structure although not necessarily with similar sequence. 

We present a list of 5 such algorithms, implemented into a publicly available web-server, for your convenience (some are even available for download). These software relay on sophisticated superposition algorithms and hence you can use most of them to just accurately superimpose two structures. 

(more…)

Written by Nir London in: Resources | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Mar
22
2009
0

Model(l)ing’09

The Annual International Meeting of the Molecular Graphics and Modeling Society (MGMS) will take place in Erlangen, Germany from September 7th (registration and mixer) – 11th 2009.

The meeting will be preceded by the annual Molecular Modelling Workshop organised by the Molecular Graphics and Modelling Society – Deutschsprachige Sektion (MGMS-DS) from Sunday 6th to Monday, September 7th.

More Details: Modeling’09

Mar
15
2009
58

What is your favorite molecular viewer ?

One of the main tools of the structural biologist (computational or experimental) if not, THE main tool, is the molecular viewer he uses. There are various viewers available, but usually each of us, at a certain point at his career, chooses a specific one and specializes in it. It becomes a way of self expression, to the point that using a “non-native” viewer is like talking in a foreign language. (How do I select only the polar atoms within 4.5A of chain B and color them CPK in this awkward viewer ?!?!?! On MY viewer it would take me a second!)

We want to hear what is YOUR molecular viewer of choice. Each viewer is optimized for a different set of tasks. E.g. VMD is designed for molecular dynamics, UCSF Chimera integrates many molecular analysis tools, Rasmol is a quick and dirty command line operated little fellow, not producing the nicest figures though, PyMOL creates good looking figures and is highly scriptable (as we demonstrated before in PyMOL scripts), while Jmol is web oriented and easy to embed in web pages.

 

What is your favorite molecular viewer ?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

There are other software available, please tell us in the comments what’s your favorite viewer advantages and what are the disadvantages of the other “lesser” ;) viewers.

Mar
10
2009
0

High-resolution NMR spectroscopy of proteins in cells

A recent Nature paper reports the first solved high-resolution NMR structure of a protein in the cytosol of living E. coli bacteria. Michael Clarkson from “Discount Thoughts” wrote a very interesting summary of this paper. 

The solved protein is relatively small and simple, a 66-residue metal-binding protein from a thermophilic organism. In order to assess the effects of the enviorment on the structure (such as different salts, sugars, and metabolites, pH, crowding and excluded volume effects, that a protein only feels in the cytosol) the authors solved the NMR structure both in vitro (PDB: 2ROE) and in vivo (PDB: 2ROG). 

You can see below that the overall structure of the proteins, solved in the different conditions, is very similar. However, the in vitro ensemble is much less variable and more defined (especially in the loop regions; click on movie to view the dynamics of the ensembles). This might be the result of the different experimental conditions, but more probably, it is due to the much lower number of constraints achieved by the “In cell” NMR. 

Hence the question remains, how representative are structures solved in vitro?  

Click to view movie! Red: NMR solution of protein in vitro. Blue: NMR solution of protein in vivo.

Click to view movie! Red: NMR solution of protein in vitro. Blue: NMR solution of protein in vivo.

Written by Nir London in: Literature Reviews | Tags: , , ,
Mar
05
2009
0

Short Course: Crystallography for Modelers

The RCSB PDB will host a short course for practicing modelers looking for a better understanding of crystal structures and PDB data.

Dates: May 7 & 8 at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in Piscataway, NJ.

The target audience is PDB data users working in pharmaceuticals, biologicals, chemical industries, academia, and others who are looking to understand how to interpret in crystal structure data: possible problems, errors, and accuracy; how the data is determined and annotated; and what information and data is provided beyond atomic coordinates.

To learn more and register: Crystallography for Modelers

Written by Nir London in: Events | Tags: , , , , ,
Mar
05
2009
1

Rosetta 3.0 Released!

Rosetta 3.0 was release on the Rosetta Commons website last Friday, February 27th.  Rosetta 3.0 is a whole new Rosetta developed in a purely object oriented manner.  Most functionality from previous versions of Rosetta have been ported over and tested, ensuring very similar results.  Rosetta 3.0 is available for download as a BETA version and any users are encouraged to give feedback.

A big improvement over previous versions of Rosetta is the ability to create custom “apps”, as well as compile existing and documented apps as separate executables.  Gone are the days of a single executable all modes with a paragraph worth of flags.  Now, each app has its own executable and flags.

Existing apps that can be compiled and run with no modifications include:

RosettaAbinitio – Performs de novo protein structure prediction.

RosettaDesign – Dentifies low free energy sequences for target protein backbones.

RosettaDesign pymol plugin – A user-friendly interface for submitting Protein Design simulations using RosettaDesign.

RosettaDock – Predicts the structure of a protein-protein complex from the individual structures of the monomer components.

RosettaAntibody – Predicts antibody Fv region structures and performs antibody-antigen docking.

RosettaFragments – Generates fragment libraries for use by Rosetta ab initio in building protein structures.

RosettaNMR – Incorporates NMR data into the basic Rosetta protocol to accelerate the process of NMR structure prediction.

RosettaDNA – For the design of proteins that interact with specified DNA sequences.

RosettaRNA – Fragment assembly of RNA.

RosettaLigand – For small molecule – protein docking.

Written by Monica Berrondo in: News | Tags: ,
Mar
04
2009
0

Where has all the funding gone?

These are days of a world wide economic turmoil, most of the industry is effected and the academia as well. But even within the academia, certain fields are funded better than others. What happened to the molecular modeling funding?

(more…)

Powered by WordPress | Aeros Theme | TheBuckmaker.com WordPress Themes
© 2009 Rosetta Design Group LLC