Knowledge of the three-dimensional structures of ion channels allows for modeling their conductivity characteristics using biophysical models and can lead to discovering their cellular functionality. Recent studies show that quality of structure predictions can be significantly improved using protein contact site information. Therefore, a number of procedures for protein structure prediction based on their contact-map have been proposed. Their comparison is difficult due to different methodologies used for validation. In this work, a Contact Map-to-Structure pipeline (C2S_pipeline) for contact-based protein structure reconstruction is designed and validated. The C2S_pipeline can be used to reconstruct monomeric and multimeric proteins. The median RMSD of structures obtained during validation on a representative set of protein structures, equaled 5.27 Å, and the best structure was reconstructed with RMSD of 1.59 Å. The validation is followed by a detailed case study on the KcsA ion channel. Models of KcsA are reconstructed based on different portions of contact site information. Structural feature analysis of acquired KcsA models is supported by a thorough analysis of electrostatic potential distributions inside the channels. The study shows that electrostatic parameters are correlated with structural quality of models. Therefore, they can be used to discriminate between high and low quality structures. We show that 30 % of contact information is needed to obtain accurate structures of KcsA, if contacts are selected randomly. This number increases to 70 % in case of erroneous maps in which the remaining contacts or non-contacts are changed to the opposite. Furthermore, the study reveals that local reconstruction accuracy is correlated with the number of contacts in which amino acid are involved. This results in higher reconstruction accuracy in the structure core than peripheral regions.

Mirror protein structures are often considered as artifacts in modeling protein structures. However, they may soon become a new branch of biochemistry. Moreover, methods of protein structure reconstruction, based on their residue-residue contact maps, need methodology to differentiate between models of native and mirror orientation, especially regarding the reconstructed backbones. We analyzed 130 500 structural protein models obtained from contact maps of 1 305 SCOP domains belonging to all 7 structural classes. On average, the same numbers of native and mirror models were obtained among 100 models generated for each domain. Since their structural features are often not sufficient for differentiating between the two types of model orientations, we proposed to apply various energy terms (ETs) from PyRosetta to separate native and mirror models. To automate the procedure for differentiating these models, the k-means clustering algorithm was applied. Using total energy did not allow to obtain appropriate clusters–the accuracy of the clustering for class A (all helices) was no more than 0.52. Therefore, we tested a series of different k-means clusterings based on various combinations of ETs. Finally, applying two most differentiating ETs for each class allowed to obtain satisfying results. To unify the method for differentiating between native and mirror models, independent of their structural class, the two best ETs for each class were considered. Finally, the k-means clustering algorithm used three common ETs: probability of amino acid assuming certain values of dihedral angles Φ and Ψ, Ramachandran preferences and Coulomb interactions. The accuracies of clustering with these ETs were in the range between 0.68 and 0.76, with sensitivity and selectivity in the range between 0.68 and 0.87, depending on the structural class. The method can be applied to all fully-automated tools for protein structure reconstruction based on contact maps, especially those analyzing big sets of models.

Reconstructing protein structure based on contact maps leads to two types of models: properly oriented models and mirror models. This is due to the fact that contact maps do not include information on protein chirality. Therefore, both types of model orientations share the same contact map and are geometrically allowed. In this work, we verified the hypothesis that some of the energy terms calculated by PyRosetta could be useful to distinguish between properly oriented and mirror models. We studied 440 models of all-alpha protein domains reconstructed manually from their contact maps, where 50 % of the models were properly oriented and 50 % had mirror orientation. We showed that dihedral angles and energy terms, based on the probability of specific geometrical arrangement of the residues, differed significantly for properly oriented and mirror models.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00894-016-2975-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.