An information gain-based approach for evaluating protein structure models

SWORD2: hierarchical analysis of protein 3D structures

Understanding the functions and origins of proteins requires splitting these macromolecules into fragments that could be independent in terms of folding, activity, or evolution. For that purpose, structural domains are the typical level of analysis, but shorter segments, such as subdomains and supersecondary structures, are insightful as well. Here, we propose SWORD2, a web server for exploring how an input protein structure may be decomposed into ‘Protein Units’ that can be hierarchically assembled to delimit structural domains. For each partitioning solution, the relevance of the identified substructures is estimated through different measures. This multilevel analysis is achieved by integrating our previous work on domain delineation, ‘protein peeling’ and model quality assessment. We hope that SWORD2 will be useful to biologists searching for key regions in their proteins of interest and to bioinformaticians building datasets of protein structures. The web server is freely available online: https://www.dsimb.inserm.fr/SWORD2.

Representations of protein structure for exploring the conformational space: A speed-accuracy trade-off

•

We compare ten structural representations, either atomistic or coarse-grained.

•

Thus, ten distance-dependent statistical potentials of mean force (PMF) were built.

•

The Cβ-only and Cα + Cβ representations provide the best speed–accuracy trade-off.

•

Including glycines through Cα, in a Cβ-only representation, yields a higher accuracy.

•

We generalize the conclusions to the total information gain (TIG) scoring function.

The recent breakthrough in the field of protein structure prediction shows the relevance of using knowledge-based based scoring functions in combination with a low-resolution 3D representation of protein macromolecules. The choice of not using all atoms is barely supported by any data in the literature, and is mostly motivated by empirical and practical reasons, such as the computational cost of assessing the numerous folds of the protein conformational space. Here, we present a comprehensive study, carried on a large and balanced benchmark of predicted protein structures, to see how different types of structural representations rank in either accuracy or calculation speed, and which ones offer the best compromise between these two criteria. We tested ten representations, including low-resolution, high-resolution, and coarse-grained approaches. We also investigated the generalization of the findings to other formalisms than the widely-used “potential of mean force” (PMF) method. Thus, we observed that representing protein structures by their β carbons—combined or not with Cα—provides the best speed–accuracy trade-off, when using a “total information gain” scoring function. For statistical PMFs, using MARTINI backbone and side-chains beads is the best option. Finally, we also demonstrated the necessity of training the reference state on all atom types, and of including the Cα atoms of glycine residues, in a Cβ-based representation.