Macromolecular modeling and design in Rosetta: recent methods and frameworks.
Journal
Nature methods
ISSN: 1548-7105
Titre abrégé: Nat Methods
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101215604
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
received:
29
04
2019
accepted:
22
04
2020
pubmed:
3
6
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
3
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Rosetta software for macromolecular modeling, docking and design is extensively used in laboratories worldwide. During two decades of development by a community of laboratories at more than 60 institutions, Rosetta has been continuously refactored and extended. Its advantages are its performance and interoperability between broad modeling capabilities. Here we review tools developed in the last 5 years, including over 80 methods. We discuss improvements to the score function, user interfaces and usability. Rosetta is available at http://www.rosettacommons.org.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32483333
doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-0848-2
pii: 10.1038/s41592-020-0848-2
pmc: PMC7603796
mid: NIHMS1634548
doi:
Substances chimiques
Macromolecular Substances
0
Peptidomimetics
0
Proteins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
665-680Subventions
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM007628
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM099827
Pays : United States
Organisme : American Heart Association-American Stroke Association
ID : 18POST34080422
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK097376
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM117189
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM135141
Pays : United States
Organisme : Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : RL1 CA133832
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM126299
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM117968
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM084453
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : F31 CA243353
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R21 GM102716
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R35 GM122517
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA006927
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : F32 GM110899
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM097207
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM099842
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM080403
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM092802
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM073151
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R35 GM125034
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI113867
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R35 GM131923
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM127578
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R21 AI121799
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM076324
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM088277
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI143997
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM078221
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM123089
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : R35 ES030443
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM132565
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : P42 ES004699
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R35 GM122579
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : T32 AI007244
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM098101
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM099959
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : F32 CA189246
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM110089
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : F31 GM123616
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL122010
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM121487
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : U19 AI117905
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R00 GM120388
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UH2 CA203780
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R21 CA219847
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM008268
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM073960
Pays : United States
Références
Schrödinger. Biologics design. https://www.schrodinger.com/science-articles/biologics-design (2020).
Chemical Computing Group. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) | MOEsaic | PSILO. https://www.chemcomp.com/Products.htm (2020).
Dassault Systèmes. BIOVIA, Discovery Studio Modeling Environment, release 2017. https://www.3dsbiovia.com/products/collaborative-science/biovia-discovery-studio/ (2016).
Steinegger, M. et al. HH-suite3 for fast remote homology detection and deep protein annotation. BMC Bioinformatics 20, 473 (2019).
pubmed: 31521110
pmcid: 6744700
Vu, O., Mendenhall, J., Altarawy, D. & Meiler, J. BCL:Mol2D-a robust atom environment descriptor for QSAR modeling and lead optimization. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 33, 477–486 (2019).
pubmed: 30955193
pmcid: 6824857
Webb, B. et al. Integrative structure modeling with the Integrative Modeling Platform. Protein Sci. 27, 245–258 (2018).
pubmed: 28960548
O’Boyle, N. M. et al. Open Babel: an open chemical toolbox. J. Cheminform. 3, 33 (2011).
pubmed: 21982300
pmcid: 21982300
Brooks, B. R. et al. CHARMM: the biomolecular simulation program. J. Comput. Chem. 30, 1545–1614 (2009).
pubmed: 19444816
pmcid: 2810661
Wang, J., Wolf, R. M., Caldwell, J. W., Kollman, P. A. & Case, D. A. Development and testing of a general amber force field. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1157–1174 (2004).
pubmed: 15116359
pmcid: 15116359
Van Der Spoel, D. et al. GROMACS: fast, flexible, and free. J. Comput. Chem. 26, 1701–1718 (2005).
Eastman, P. et al. OpenMM 7: Rapid development of high performance algorithms for molecular dynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005659 (2017).
pubmed: 28746339
pmcid: 5549999
Senior, A. W. et al. Protein structure prediction using multiple deep neural networks in the 13th Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP13). Proteins 87, 1141–1148 (2019).
pubmed: 31602685
pmcid: 7079254
Senior, A. W. et al. Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning. Nature 577, 706–710 (2020).
pubmed: 31942072
Zheng, W. et al. Deep-learning contact-map guided protein structure prediction in CASP13. Proteins 87, 1149–1164 (2019).
pubmed: 31365149
Xu, J. & Wang, S. Analysis of distance-based protein structure prediction by deep learning in CASP13. Proteins 87, 1069–1081 (2019).
pubmed: 31471916
Fiser, A. & Sali, A. Modeller: generation and refinement of homology-based protein structure models. Methods Enzymol. 374, 461–491 (2003).
pubmed: 14696385
Bienert, S. et al. The SWISS-MODEL Repository—new features and functionality. Nucleic Acids Res. 45 D1, D313–D319 (2017).
Yang, J. et al. The I-TASSER Suite: protein structure and function prediction. Nat. Methods 12, 7–8 (2015).
pubmed: 25549265
pmcid: 4428668
van Zundert, G. C. P. et al. The HADDOCK2.2 web server: user-friendly integrative modeling of biomolecular complexes. J. Mol. Biol. 428, 720–725 (2016).
pubmed: 26410586
Pierce, B. G. et al. ZDOCK server: interactive docking prediction of protein-protein complexes and symmetric multimers. Bioinformatics 30, 1771–1773 (2014).
pubmed: 24532726
pmcid: 4058926
Padhorny, D. et al. Protein-protein docking by fast generalized Fourier transforms on 5D rotational manifolds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E4286–E4293 (2016).
pubmed: 27412858
Trott, O. & Olson, A. J. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J. Comput. Chem. 31, 455–461 (2010).
pubmed: 19499576
pmcid: 3041641
BioSolveIT GmbH. FlexX version 4.1. http://www.biosolveit.de/FlexX (2019).
Tubert-Brohman, I., Sherman, W., Repasky, M. & Beuming, T. Improved docking of polypeptides with Glide. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1689–1699 (2013).
pubmed: 23800267
Sorenson, J. M. & Head-Gordon, T. Matching simulation and experiment: a new simplified model for simulating protein folding. J. Comput. Biol. 7, 469–481 (2000).
pubmed: 11108474
Koehler Leman, J. et al. Better together: Elements of successful scientific software development in a distributed collaborative community. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1007507 (2020).
pubmed: 32365137
pmcid: 7197760
Leaver-Fay, A. et al. ROSETTA3: an object-oriented software suite for the simulation and design of macromolecules. Methods Enzymol. 487, 545–574 (2011).
pubmed: 21187238
pmcid: 4083816
Alford, R. F. et al. The Rosetta all-atom energy function for macromolecular modeling and design. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 13, 3031–3048 (2017).
pubmed: 28430426
pmcid: 5717763
Park, H. et al. Simultaneous optimization of biomolecular energy functions on features from small molecules and macromolecules. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 6201–6212 (2016).
pubmed: 27766851
pmcid: 5515585
Chaudhury, S., Lyskov, S. & Gray, J. J. PyRosetta: a script-based interface for implementing molecular modeling algorithms using Rosetta. Bioinformatics 26, 689–691 (2010).
pubmed: 20061306
pmcid: 2828115
Fleishman, S. J. et al. RosettaScripts: a scripting language interface to the Rosetta macromolecular modeling suite. PLoS One 6, e20161 (2011).
pubmed: 21731610
pmcid: 3123292
Cooper, S. et al. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466, 756–760 (2010).
pubmed: 20686574
pmcid: 2956414
Bender, B. J. et al. Protocols for molecular modeling with Rosetta3 and RosettaScripts. Biochemistry https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biochem.6b00444 (2016).
Simoncini, D. et al. Guaranteed discrete energy optimization on large protein design problems. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 5980–5989 (2015).
pubmed: 26610100
Leaver-Fay, A. et al. Scientific benchmarks for guiding macromolecular energy function improvement. Methods Enzymol. 523, 109–143 (2013).
pubmed: 23422428
pmcid: 3724755
Jorgensen, W. L., Jorgensen, W. L., Maxwell, D. S. & Tirado-Rives, J. Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118, 11225–11236 (1996).
Radzicka, A. & Wolfenden, R. Comparing the polarities of the amino acids: side-chain distribution coefficients between the vapor phase, cyclohexane, 1-octanol, and neutral aqueous solution. Biochemistry 27, 1664–1670 (1988).
O’Meara, M. J. et al. Combined covalent-electrostatic model of hydrogen bonding improves structure prediction with Rosetta. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 609–622 (2015).
pubmed: 25866491
pmcid: 4390092
Conway, P., Tyka, M. D., DiMaio, F., Konerding, D. E. & Baker, D. Relaxation of backbone bond geometry improves protein energy landscape modeling. Protein Sci. 23, 47–55 (2014).
pubmed: 24265211
Park, H., Lee, H. & Seok, C. High-resolution protein-protein docking by global optimization: recent advances and future challenges. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 35, 24–31 (2015).
pubmed: 26295792
Kellogg, E. H., Leaver-Fay, A. & Baker, D. Role of conformational sampling in computing mutation-induced changes in protein structure and stability. Proteins 79, 830–838 (2011).
pubmed: 21287615
Mills, J. H. et al. Computational design of an unnatural amino acid dependent metalloprotein with atomic level accuracy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 13393–13399 (2013).
pubmed: 23924187
Kappel, K. et al. Blind tests of RNA-protein binding affinity prediction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 8336–8341 (2019).
pubmed: 30962376
Bhardwaj, G. et al. Accurate de novo design of hyperstable constrained peptides. Nature 538, 329–335 (2016).
pubmed: 27626386
pmcid: 5161715
Hosseinzadeh, P. et al. Comprehensive computational design of ordered peptide macrocycles. Science 358, 1461–1466 (2017).
pubmed: 29242347
pmcid: 5860875
Leaver-Fay, A., Butterfoss, G. L., Snoeyink, J. & Kuhlman, B. Maintaining solvent accessible surface area under rotamer substitution for protein design. J. Comput. Chem. 28, 1336–1341 (2007).
pubmed: 17285560
Boyken, S. E. et al. De novo design of protein homo-oligomers with modular hydrogen-bond network-mediated specificity. Science 352, 680–687 (2016).
pubmed: 27151862
pmcid: 5497568
Lu, P. et al. Accurate computational design of multipass transmembrane proteins. Science 359, 1042–1046 (2018).
pubmed: 29496880
pmcid: 7328376
Chen, Z. et al. Programmable design of orthogonal protein heterodimers. Nature 565, 106–111 (2019).
pubmed: 30568301
Maguire, J. B., Boyken, S. E., Baker, D. & Kuhlman, B. Rapid sampling of hydrogen bond networks for computational protein design. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 14, 2751–2760 (2018).
pubmed: 29652499
pmcid: 5940506
Pavlovicz, R.E., Park, H. & DiMaio, F. Efficient consideration of coordinated water molecules improves computational protein-protein and protein-ligand docking. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/618603 (2019).
Bhowmick, A., Sharma, S. C., Honma, H. & Head-Gordon, T. The role of side chain entropy and mutual information for improving the de novo design of Kemp eliminases KE07 and KE70. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 19386–19396 (2016).
pubmed: 27374812
König, R. & Dandekar, T. Solvent entropy-driven searching for protein modeling examined and tested in simplified models. Protein Eng. 14, 329–335 (2001).
pubmed: 11438755
Kryshtafovych, A., Schwede, T., Topf, M., Fidelis, K. & Moult, J. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)—round XIII. Proteins https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.25823 (2019).
Song, Y. et al. High-resolution comparative modeling with RosettaCM. Structure 21, 1735–1742 (2013).
pubmed: 24035711
Robetta. http://new.robetta.org/ (2020).
Park, H., Kim, D. E., Ovchinnikov, S., Baker, D. & DiMaio, F. Automatic structure prediction of oligomeric assemblies using Robetta in CASP12. Proteins 86(Suppl. 1), 283–291 (2018).
pubmed: 28913931
Kamisetty, H., Ovchinnikov, S. & Baker, D. Assessing the utility of coevolution-based residue-residue contact predictions in a sequence- and structure-rich era. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15674–15679 (2013).
pubmed: 24009338
Ovchinnikov, S. et al. Protein structure determination using metagenome sequence data. Science 355, 294–298 (2017).
pubmed: 28104891
pmcid: 5493203
Park, H., Ovchinnikov, S., Kim, D. E., DiMaio, F. & Baker, D. Protein homology model refinement by large-scale energy optimization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3054–3059 (2018).
pubmed: 29507254
Tyka, M. D. et al. Alternate states of proteins revealed by detailed energy landscape mapping. J. Mol. Biol. 405, 607–618 (2011).
pubmed: 21073878
Friedland, G. D., Linares, A. J., Smith, C. A. & Kortemme, T. A simple model of backbone flexibility improves modeling of side-chain conformational variability. J. Mol. Biol. 380, 757–774 (2008).
pubmed: 18547586
pmcid: 3574579
Kapp, G. T. et al. Control of protein signaling using a computationally designed GTPase/GEF orthogonal pair. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5277–5282 (2012).
pubmed: 22403064
Stein, A. & Kortemme, T. Improvements to robotics-inspired conformational sampling in rosetta. PLoS One 8, e63090 (2013).
pubmed: 23704889
pmcid: 3660577
Lin, M. S. & Head-Gordon, T. Improved energy selection of nativelike protein loops from loop decoys. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 4, 515–521 (2008).
pubmed: 26620791
Rohl, C. A., Strauss, C. E. M., Chivian, D. & Baker, D. Modeling structurally variable regions in homologous proteins with rosetta. Proteins 55, 656–677 (2004).
pubmed: 15103629
Wang, C., Bradley, P. & Baker, D. Protein-protein docking with backbone flexibility. J. Mol. Biol. 373, 503–519 (2007).
pubmed: 17825317
Canutescu, A. A. & Dunbrack, R. L. Jr. Cyclic coordinate descent: a robotics algorithm for protein loop closure. Protein Sci. 12, 963–972 (2003).
pubmed: 12717019
pmcid: 2323867
Mandell, D. J., Coutsias, E. A. & Kortemme, T. Sub-angstrom accuracy in protein loop reconstruction by robotics-inspired conformational sampling. Nat. Methods 6, 551–552 (2009).
pubmed: 19644455
pmcid: 2847683
Mandell, D. J. & Kortemme, T. Backbone flexibility in computational protein design. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 20, 420–428 (2009).
pubmed: 19709874
Marze, N. A., Roy Burman, S. S., Sheffler, W. & Gray, J. J. Efficient flexible backbone protein-protein docking for challenging targets. Bioinformatics 34, 3461–3469 (2018).
pubmed: 29718115
pmcid: 6184633
Roy Burman, S. S., Yovanno, R. A. & Gray, J. J. Flexible backbone assembly and refinement of symmetrical homomeric complexes. Structure 27, 1041–1051.e8 (2019).
pubmed: 31006588
DiMaio, F., Leaver-Fay, A., Bradley, P., Baker, D. & André, I. Modeling symmetric macromolecular structures in Rosetta3. PLoS One 6, e20450 (2011).
pubmed: 21731614
pmcid: 3120754
Meiler, J. & Baker, D. ROSETTALIGAND: protein-small molecule docking with full side-chain flexibility. Proteins 65, 538–548 (2006).
pubmed: 16972285
Fu, D. Y. & Meiler, J. Predictive power of different types of experimental restraints in small molecule docking: a review. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 58, 225–233 (2018).
pubmed: 29286651
Fu, D. Y. & Meiler, J. RosettaLigandEnsemble: a small-molecule ensemble-driven docking approach. ACS Omega 3, 3655–3664 (2018).
pubmed: 29732444
pmcid: 5928483
Johnson, D. K. & Karanicolas, J. Druggable protein interaction sites are more predisposed to surface pocket formation than the rest of the protein surface. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1002951 (2013).
pubmed: 23505360
pmcid: 3591273
Johnson, D. K. & Karanicolas, J. Selectivity by small-molecule inhibitors of protein interactions can be driven by protein surface fluctuations. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004081 (2015).
pubmed: 25706586
pmcid: 4338137
Johnson, D. K. & Karanicolas, J. Ultra-high-throughput structure-based virtual screening for small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56, 399–411 (2016).
pubmed: 26726827
pmcid: 4765363
Sircar, A., Kim, E. T. & Gray, J. J. RosettaAntibody: antibody variable region homology modeling server. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, W474–W479 (2009).
pubmed: 19458157
pmcid: 2703951
Weitzner, B. D., Kuroda, D., Marze, N., Xu, J. & Gray, J. J. Blind prediction performance of RosettaAntibody 3.0: grafting, relaxation, kinematic loop modeling, and full CDR optimization. Proteins 82, 1611–1623 (2014).
pubmed: 24519881
pmcid: 4107143
Weitzner, B. D. et al. Modeling and docking of antibody structures with Rosetta. Nat. Protoc. 12, 401–416 (2017).
pubmed: 28125104
pmcid: 5739521
Sivasubramanian, A., Sircar, A., Chaudhury, S. & Gray, J. J. Toward high-resolution homology modeling of antibody F
pubmed: 19062174
pmcid: 2909601
Marze, N. A., Lyskov, S. & Gray, J. J. Improved prediction of antibody V
pubmed: 27276984
pmcid: 5036862
Finn, J. A. et al. Improving loop modeling of the antibody complementarity-determining region 3 using knowledge-based restraints. PLoS One 11, e0154811 (2016).
pubmed: 27182833
pmcid: 4868311
Weitzner, B. D. & Gray, J. J. Accurate structure prediction of CDR H3 loops enabled by a novel structure-based C-terminal constraint. J. Immunol. 198, 505–515 (2017).
pubmed: 27872211
DeKosky, B. J. et al. Large-scale sequence and structural comparisons of human naive and antigen-experienced antibody repertoires. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E2636–E2645 (2016).
pubmed: 27114511
Jeliazkov, J. R. et al. Repertoire analysis of antibody CDR-H3 loops suggests affinity maturation does not typically result in rigidification. Front. Immunol. 9, 413 (2018).
pubmed: 29545810
pmcid: 5840193
Norn, C. H., Lapidoth, G. & Fleishman, S. J. High-accuracy modeling of antibody structures by a search for minimum-energy recombination of backbone fragments. Proteins 85, 30–38 (2017).
pubmed: 27717001
Lapidoth, G., Parker, J., Prilusky, J. & Fleishman, S. J. AbPredict 2: a server for accurate and unstrained structure prediction of antibody variable domains. Bioinformatics 35, 1591–1593 (2019).
pubmed: 30951584
pmcid: 6542689
Sircar, A. & Gray, J. J. SnugDock: paratope structural optimization during antibody-antigen docking compensates for errors in antibody homology models. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000644 (2010).
pubmed: 20098500
pmcid: 2800046
Sircar, A., Sanni, K. A., Shi, J. & Gray, J. J. Analysis and modeling of the variable region of camelid single-domain antibodies. J. Immunol. 186, 6357–6367 (2011).
pubmed: 21525384
pmcid: 3098910
Adolf-Bryfogle, J. et al. RosettaAntibodyDesign (RAbD): a general framework for computational antibody design. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006112 (2018).
pubmed: 29702641
pmcid: 5942852
North, B., Lehmann, A. & Dunbrack, R. L. Jr. A new clustering of antibody CDR loop conformations. J. Mol. Biol. 406, 228–256 (2011).
pubmed: 21035459
King, C. et al. Removing T-cell epitopes with computational protein design. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 8577–8582 (2014).
pubmed: 24843166
Nivón, L. G., Bjelic, S., King, C. & Baker, D. Automating human intuition for protein design. Proteins 82, 858–866 (2014).
pubmed: 24265170
Lapidoth, G. D. et al. AbDesign: an algorithm for combinatorial backbone design guided by natural conformations and sequences. Proteins 83, 1385–1406 (2015).
pubmed: 25670500
pmcid: 4881815
Baran, D. et al. Principles for computational design of binding antibodies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10900–10905 (2017).
pubmed: 28973872
Vaissier Welborn, V. & Head-Gordon, T. Computational design of synthetic enzymes. Chem. Rev. 119, 6613–6630 (2019).
pubmed: 30277066
Marcos, E. & Silva, D.-A. Essentials of de novo protein design: methods and applications. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 8, e1374 (2018).
Marcos, E. et al. Principles for designing proteins with cavities formed by curved β sheets. Science 355, 201–206 (2017).
pubmed: 28082595
pmcid: 5588894
Zhou, J., Panaitiu, A. E. & Grigoryan, G. A general-purpose protein design framework based on mining sequence-structure relationships in known protein structures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 1059–1068 (2020).
pubmed: 31892539
Jacobs, T. M. et al. Design of structurally distinct proteins using strategies inspired by evolution. Science 352, 687–690 (2016).
pubmed: 27151863
pmcid: 4934125
Guffy, S. L., Teets, F. D., Langlois, M. I. & Kuhlman, B. Protocols for requirement-driven protein design in the Rosetta modeling program. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 58, 895–901 (2018).
pubmed: 29659276
pmcid: 5975180
Lapidoth, G. et al. Highly active enzymes by automated combinatorial backbone assembly and sequence design. Nat. Commun. 9, 2780 (2018).
pubmed: 30018322
pmcid: 6050298
Huang, P.-S. et al. RosettaRemodel: a generalized framework for flexible backbone protein design. PLoS One 6, e24109 (2011).
pubmed: 21909381
pmcid: 3166072
Leaver-Fay, A., Jacak, R., Stranges, P. B. & Kuhlman, B. A generic program for multistate protein design. PLoS One 6, e20937 (2011).
pubmed: 21754981
pmcid: 3130737
Sevy, A. M., Jacobs, T. M., Crowe, J. E. Jr. & Meiler, J. Design of protein multi-specificity using an independent sequence search reduces the barrier to low energy sequences. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004300 (2015).
pubmed: 26147100
pmcid: 4493036
Sevy, A. M. et al. Multistate design of influenza antibodies improves affinity and breadth against seasonal viruses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1597–1602 (2019).
pubmed: 30642961
Sauer, M. F., Sevy, A. M., Crowe, J. E. & Meiler, J. Multi-state design of flexible proteins predicts sequences optimal for conformational change. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1007339 (2020).
pubmed: 32032348
pmcid: 7032724
Correia, B. E. et al. Proof of principle for epitope-focused vaccine design. Nature 507, 201–206 (2014).
pubmed: 24499818
pmcid: 4260937
Bonet, J. et al. Rosetta FunFolDes — a general framework for the computational design of functional proteins. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006623 (2018).
pubmed: 30452434
pmcid: 6277116
Kroncke, B. M. et al. Documentation of an imperative to improve methods for predicting membrane protein stability. Biochemistry 55, 5002–5009 (2016).
pubmed: 27564391
pmcid: 5024705
Kortemme, T. & Baker, D. A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein-protein complexes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 14116–14121 (2002).
pubmed: 12381794
Kortemme, T., Kim, D. E. & Baker, D. Computational alanine scanning of protein-protein interfaces. Sci. STKE 2004, pl2 (2004).
pubmed: 14872095
Conchúir, Ó. et al. Web resource for standardized benchmark datasets, metrics, and Rosetta protocols for macromolecular modeling and design. PLoS One 10, e0130433 (2015).
Barlow, K. A. et al. Flex ddG: Rosetta ensemble-based estimation of changes in protein-protein binding affinity upon mutation. J. Phys. Chem. B 122, 5389–5399 (2018).
pubmed: 29401388
pmcid: 5980710
Smith, C. A. & Kortemme, T. Backrub-like backbone simulation recapitulates natural protein conformational variability and improves mutant side-chain prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 380, 742–756 (2008).
pubmed: 18547585
pmcid: 2603262
Crick, F. H. C. The Fourier transform of a coiled-coil. Acta Crystallogr. 6, 685–689 (1953).
Dang, B. et al. De novo design of covalently constrained mesosize protein scaffolds with unique tertiary structures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10852–10857 (2017).
pubmed: 28973862
Alam, N. et al. High-resolution global peptide-protein docking using fragments-based PIPER-FlexPepDock. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005905 (2017).
pubmed: 29281622
pmcid: 5760072
Kozakov, D., Brenke, R., Comeau, S. R. & Vajda, S. PIPER: an FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials. Proteins 65, 392–406 (2006).
pubmed: 16933295
Raveh, B., London, N. & Schueler-Furman, O. Sub-angstrom modeling of complexes between flexible peptides and globular proteins. Proteins 78, 2029–2040 (2010).
pubmed: 20455260
Pacella, M. S., Koo, C. E., Thottungal, R. A. & Gray, J. J. Using the RosettaSurface algorithm to predict protein structure at mineral surfaces. Methods Enzymol. 532, 343–366 (2013).
pubmed: 24188775
pmcid: 4020438
Lubin, J. H., Pacella, M. S. & Gray, J. J. A parametric Rosetta energy function analysis with LK peptides on SAM surfaces. Langmuir 34, 5279–5289 (2018).
pubmed: 29630384
Frenz, B., Walls, A. C., Egelman, E. H., Veesler, D. & DiMaio, F. RosettaES: a sampling strategy enabling automated interpretation of difficult cryo-EM maps. Nat. Methods 14, 797–800 (2017).
pubmed: 28628127
pmcid: 6009829
Wang, R. Y.-R. et al. Automated structure refinement of macromolecular assemblies from cryo-EM maps using Rosetta. eLife 5, e17219 (2016).
pubmed: 27669148
pmcid: 5115868
Labonte, J. W., Adolf-Bryfogle, J., Schief, W. R. & Gray, J. J. Residue-centric modeling and design of saccharide and glycoconjugate structures. J. Comput. Chem. 38, 276–287 (2017).
pubmed: 27900782
Frenz, B. et al. Automatically fixing errors in glycoprotein structures with Rosetta. Structure 27, 134–139.e3 (2019).
pubmed: 30344107
Nerli, S. & Sgourakis, N. G. CS-ROSETTA. Methods Enzymol. 614, 321–362 (2019).
pubmed: 30611429
Rohl, C. A. & Baker, D. De novo determination of protein backbone structure from residual dipolar couplings using Rosetta. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 2723–2729 (2002).
pubmed: 11890823
Yagi, H. et al. Three-dimensional protein fold determination from backbone amide pseudocontact shifts generated by lanthanide tags at multiple sites. Structure 21, 883–890 (2013).
pubmed: 23643949
Schmitz, C., Vernon, R., Otting, G., Baker, D. & Huber, T. Protein structure determination from pseudocontact shifts using ROSETTA. J. Mol. Biol. 416, 668–677 (2012).
pubmed: 22285518
pmcid: 3638895
Pilla, K. B., Otting, G. & Huber, T. Pseudocontact shift-driven iterative resampling for 3d structure determinations of large proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 428, 522–532 (2016). 2 Pt B.
pubmed: 26778618
Lange, O. F. & Baker, D. Resolution-adapted recombination of structural features significantly improves sampling in restraint-guided structure calculation. Proteins 80, 884–895 (2012).
pubmed: 22423358
Bowers, P. M., Strauss, C. E. M. & Baker, D. De novo protein structure determination using sparse NMR data. J. Biomol. NMR 18, 311–318 (2000).
pubmed: 11200525
Meiler, J. & Baker, D. Rapid protein fold determination using unassigned NMR data. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 15404–15409 (2003).
pubmed: 14668443
Raman, S. et al. NMR structure determination for larger proteins using backbone-only data. Science 327, 1014–1018 (2010).
pubmed: 20133520
pmcid: 2909653
Lange, O. F. et al. Determination of solution structures of proteins up to 40 kDa using CS-Rosetta with sparse NMR data from deuterated samples. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 10873–10878 (2012).
pubmed: 22733734
Reichel, K. et al. Systematic evaluation of CS-Rosetta for membrane protein structure prediction with sparse NOE restraints. Proteins 85, 812–826 (2017).
pubmed: 27936510
Sgourakis, N. G. et al. Determination of the structures of symmetric protein oligomers from NMR chemical shifts and residual dipolar couplings. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 6288–6298 (2011).
pubmed: 21466200
pmcid: 3080108
Rossi, P. et al. A hybrid NMR/SAXS-based approach for discriminating oligomeric protein interfaces using Rosetta. Proteins 83, 309–317 (2015).
pubmed: 25388768
Demers, J.-P. et al. High-resolution structure of the Shigella type-III secretion needle by solid-state NMR and cryo-electron microscopy. Nat. Commun. 5, 4976 (2014).
pubmed: 25264107
pmcid: 4251803
Thompson, J. M. et al. Accurate protein structure modeling using sparse NMR data and homologous structure information. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9875–9880 (2012).
pubmed: 22665781
Braun, T., Koehler Leman, J. & Lange, O. F. Combining evolutionary information and an iterative sampling strategy for accurate protein structure prediction. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004661 (2015).
pubmed: 26713437
pmcid: 4694711
Evangelidis, T. et al. Automated NMR resonance assignments and structure determination using a minimal set of 4D spectra. Nat. Commun. 9, 384 (2018).
pubmed: 29374165
pmcid: 5786013
Lange, O. F. Automatic NOESY assignment in CS-RASREC-Rosetta. J. Biomol. NMR 59, 147–159 (2014).
pubmed: 24831340
Kuenze, G., Bonneau, R., Koehler Leman, J. & Meiler, J. Integrative protein modeling in RosettaNMR from sparse paramagnetic restraints. Structure 27, 1721–1734.e5 (2019).
pubmed: 31522945
Aprahamian, M. L., Chea, E. E., Jones, L. M. & Lindert, S. Rosetta protein structure prediction from hydroxyl radical protein footprinting mass spectrometry data. Anal. Chem. 90, 7721–7729 (2018).
pubmed: 29874044
pmcid: 6008241
Aprahamian, M. L. & Lindert, S. Utility of covalent labeling mass spectrometry data in protein structure prediction with Rosetta. J. Chem. Theory Comput. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00101 (2019).
Hauri, S. et al. Rapid determination of quaternary protein structures in complex biological samples. Nat. Commun. 10, 192 (2019).
pubmed: 30643114
pmcid: 6331586
Watkins, A. M. et al. Blind prediction of noncanonical RNA structure at atomic accuracy. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar5316 (2018).
pubmed: 29806027
pmcid: 5969821
Sripakdeevong, P., Kladwang, W. & Das, R. An enumerative stepwise ansatz enables atomic-accuracy RNA loop modeling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20573–20578 (2011).
pubmed: 22143768
Das, R. Atomic-accuracy prediction of protein loop structures through an RNA-inspired Ansatz. PLoS One 8, e74830 (2013).
pubmed: 24204571
pmcid: 3804535
Chou, F.-C., Sripakdeevong, P., Dibrov, S. M., Hermann, T. & Das, R. Correcting pervasive errors in RNA crystallography through enumerative structure prediction. Nat. Methods 10, 74–76 (2013).
pubmed: 23202432
Chou, F.-C., Echols, N., Terwilliger, T. C. & Das, R. RNA structure refinement using the ERRASER-Phenix pipeline. in Nucleic Acid Crystallography 269–282 (Springer, 2016); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2763-0_17
Kappel, K. & Das, R. Sampling native-like structures of RNA-protein complexes through Rosetta folding and docking. Structure 27, 140–151.e5 (2019).
pubmed: 30416038
Kappel, K. et al. De novo computational RNA modeling into cryo-EM maps of large ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat. Methods 15, 947–954 (2018).
pubmed: 30377372
pmcid: 6636682
Thyme, S. B. et al. Exploitation of binding energy for catalysis and design. Nature 461, 1300–1304 (2009).
pubmed: 19865174
pmcid: 2771326
Ashworth, J. et al. Computational redesign of endonuclease DNA binding and cleavage specificity. Nature 441, 656–659 (2006).
pubmed: 16738662
pmcid: 2999987
Ashworth, J. et al. Computational reprogramming of homing endonuclease specificity at multiple adjacent base pairs. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, 5601–5608 (2010).
pubmed: 20435674
pmcid: 2938204
Havranek, J. J. & Harbury, P. B. Automated design of specificity in molecular recognition. Nat. Struct. Biol. 10, 45–52 (2003).
pubmed: 12459719
Thyme, S. B. et al. Reprogramming homing endonuclease specificity through computational design and directed evolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 2564–2576 (2014).
pubmed: 24270794
Thyme, S. B., Baker, D. & Bradley, P. Improved modeling of side-chain—base interactions and plasticity in protein—DNA interface design. J. Mol. Biol. 419, 255–274 (2012).
pubmed: 22426128
pmcid: 3566986
Yanover, C. & Bradley, P. Extensive protein and DNA backbone sampling improves structure-based specificity prediction for C2H2 zinc fingers. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 4564–4576 (2011).
pubmed: 21343182
pmcid: 3113574
Ashworth, J. & Baker, D. Assessment of the optimization of affinity and specificity at protein-DNA interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, e73 (2009).
pubmed: 19389725
pmcid: 2691843
Thyme, S. B. et al. Massively parallel determination and modeling of endonuclease substrate specificity. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 13839–13852 (2014).
pubmed: 25389263
pmcid: 4267613
Overington, J. P., Al-Lazikani, B. & Hopkins, A. L. How many drug targets are there? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 993–996 (2006).
pubmed: 17139284
Koehler Leman, J., Ulmschneider, M. B. & Gray, J. J. Computational modeling of membrane proteins. Proteins 83, 1–24 (2015).
pubmed: 25355688
Yarov-Yarovoy, V., Schonbrun, J. & Baker, D. Multipass membrane protein structure prediction using Rosetta. Proteins 62, 1010–1025 (2006).
pubmed: 16372357
pmcid: 1479309
Barth, P., Schonbrun, J. & Baker, D. Toward high-resolution prediction and design of transmembrane helical protein structures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15682–15687 (2007).
pubmed: 17905872
Alford, R. F. et al. An integrated framework advancing membrane protein modeling and design. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004398 (2015).
pubmed: 26325167
pmcid: 4556676
Baugh, E. H., Lyskov, S., Weitzner, B. D. & Gray, J. J. Real-time PyMOL visualization for Rosetta and PyRosetta. PLoS One 6, e21931 (2011).
pubmed: 21857909
pmcid: 3156697
Koehler Leman, J., Mueller, B. K. & Gray, J. J. Expanding the toolkit for membrane protein modeling in Rosetta. Bioinformatics 33, 754–756 (2017).
pubmed: 28011777
Koehler Leman, J., Lyskov, S. & Bonneau, R. Computing structure-based lipid accessibility of membrane proteins with mp_lipid_acc in RosettaMP. BMC Bioinformatics 18, 115 (2017).
pubmed: 28219343
pmcid: 5319049
Koehler Leman, J. & Bonneau, R. A novel domain assembly routine for creating full-length models of membrane proteins from known domain structures. Biochemistry https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biochem.7b00995 (2017).
Lai, J. K., Ambia, J., Wang, Y. & Barth, P. Enhancing structure prediction and design of soluble and membrane proteins with explicit solvent-protein interactions. Structure 25, 1758–1770.e8 (2017).
pubmed: 28966016
pmcid: 5909693
Alford, R. F., Fleming, P. J., Fleming, K. G. & Gray, J. J. Protein structure prediction and design in a biologically realistic implicit membrane. Biophys. J. 118, 2042–2055 (2020).
pubmed: 32224301
Varki, A. Biological roles of oligosaccharides: all of the theories are correct. Glycobiology 3, 97–130 (1993).
pubmed: 8490246
pmcid: 7108619
Varki, A. et al. Essentials of Glycobiology (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2009).
Nivedha, A. K., Thieker, D. F., Makeneni, S., Hu, H. & Woods, R. J. Vina-Carb: improving glycosidic angles during carbohydrate docking. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 892–901 (2016).
pubmed: 26744922
pmcid: 26744922
Gray, J. J., Chaudhury, S., Lyskov, S. & Labonte, J. W. The PyRosetta interactive platform for protein structure prediction and design: a set of educational modules. (CreateSpace, 2014).
Schenkelberg, C. D. & Bystroff, C. InteractiveROSETTA: a graphical user interface for the PyRosetta protein modeling suite. Bioinformatics 31, 4023–4025 (2015).
pubmed: 26315900
pmcid: 5013933
Kleffner, R. et al. Foldit Standalone: a video game-derived protein structure manipulation interface using Rosetta. Bioinformatics 33, 2765–2767 (2017).
pubmed: 28481970
pmcid: 5860063
Cooper, S., Sterling, A. L. R., Kleffner, R., Silversmith, W. M. & Siegel, J. B. Repurposing citizen science games as software tools for professional scientists. in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Foundations of Digital Games – FDG ’18 https://doi.org/10.1145/3235765.3235770 (ACM Press, 2018).
Lyskov, S. et al. Serverification of molecular modeling applications: the Rosetta Online Server that Includes Everyone (ROSIE). PLoS One 8, e63906 (2013).
pubmed: 23717507
pmcid: 3661552
Moretti, R., Lyskov, S., Das, R., Meiler, J. & Gray, J. J. Web-accessible molecular modeling with Rosetta: the Rosetta Online Server that Includes Everyone (ROSIE). Protein Sci. 27, 259–268 (2018).
pubmed: 28960691
Institute for Protein Design. Audacious Project. https://www.ipd.uw.edu/audacious/ (2019).
Mulligan, V.K. et al. Designing peptides on a quantum computer. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/752485 (2019).
Gront, D., Kulp, D. W., Vernon, R. M., Strauss, C. E. M. & Baker, D. Generalized fragment picking in Rosetta: design, protocols and applications. PLoS One 6, e23294 (2011).
pubmed: 21887241
pmcid: 3160850
Marcos, E. et al. De novo design of a non-local β-sheet protein with high stability and accuracy. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 25, 1028–1034 (2018).
pubmed: 30374087
pmcid: 6219906
DeLuca, S., Khar, K. & Meiler, J. Fully flexible docking of medium sized ligand libraries with RosettaLigand. PLoS One 10, e0132508 (2015).
pubmed: 26207742
pmcid: 4514752
Davis, I. W. & Baker, D. RosettaLigand docking with full ligand and receptor flexibility. J. Mol. Biol. 385, 381–392 (2009).
pubmed: 19041878
Gowthaman, R. et al. DARC: mapping surface topography by ray-casting for effective virtual screening at protein interaction sites. J. Med. Chem. 59, 4152–4170 (2016).
pubmed: 26126123
Khar, K. R., Goldschmidt, L. & Karanicolas, J. Fast docking on graphics processing units via Ray-Casting. PLoS One 8, e70661 (2013).
pubmed: 23976948
pmcid: 3745428
Gowthaman, R., Lyskov, S. & Karanicolas, J. DARC 2.0: improved docking and virtual screening at protein interaction sites. PLoS One 10, e0131612 (2015).
pubmed: 26181386
pmcid: 4504481
Toor, J. S. et al. A recurrent mutation in anaplastic lymphoma kinase with distinct neoepitope conformations. Front. Immunol. 9, 99 (2018).
pubmed: 29441070
pmcid: 5797543
Gowthaman, R. & Pierce, B. G. TCRmodel: high resolution modeling of T cell receptors from sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 46 W1, W396–W401 (2018).
Blacklock, K. M., Yang, L., Mulligan, V. K. & Khare, S. D. A computational method for the design of nested proteins by loop-directed domain insertion. Proteins 86, 354–369 (2018).
pubmed: 29250820
Ollikainen, N., de Jong, R. M. & Kortemme, T. Coupling protein side-chain and backbone flexibility improves the re-design of protein-ligand specificity. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004335 (2015).
pubmed: 26397464
pmcid: 4580623
Raveh, B., London, N., Zimmerman, L. & Schueler-Furman, O. Rosetta FlexPepDock ab-initio: simultaneous folding, docking and refinement of peptides onto their receptors. PLoS One 6, e18934 (2011).
pubmed: 21572516
pmcid: 3084719
Sedan, Y., Marcu, O., Lyskov, S. & Schueler-Furman, O. Peptiderive server: derive peptide inhibitors from protein-protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 44 W1, W536–W541 (2016).
Rubenstein, A. B., Pethe, M. A. & Khare, S. D. MFPred: rapid and accurate prediction of protein-peptide recognition multispecificity using self-consistent mean field theory. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005614 (2017).
pubmed: 28650961
pmcid: 5507473
Pacella, M. S. & Gray, J. J. A benchmarking study of peptide–biomineral interactions. Cryst. Growth Des. 18, 607–616 (2018).
Wang, R. Y.-R. et al. De novo protein structure determination from near-atomic-resolution cryo-EM maps. Nat. Methods 12, 335–338 (2015).
pubmed: 25707029
pmcid: 4435692
DiMaio, F. et al. Improved low-resolution crystallographic refinement with Phenix and Rosetta. Nat. Methods 10, 1102–1104 (2013).
pubmed: 24076763
pmcid: 4116791
DiMaio, F. et al. Atomic-accuracy models from 4.5-Å cryo-electron microscopy data with density-guided iterative local refinement. Nat. Methods 12, 361–365 (2015).
pubmed: 25707030
pmcid: 4382417
Das, R., Karanicolas, J. & Baker, D. Atomic accuracy in predicting and designing noncanonical RNA structure. Nat. Methods 7, 291–294 (2010).
pubmed: 20190761
pmcid: 2854559
Cheng, C. Y., Chou, F.-C. & Das, R. Modeling complex RNA tertiary folds with Rosetta. Methods Enzymol. 553, 35–64 (2015).
pubmed: 25726460
Sripakdeevong, P. et al. Structure determination of noncanonical RNA motifs guided by
pubmed: 24584194
pmcid: 3985481
Chou, F. C., Kladwang, W., Kappel, K. & Das, R. Blind tests of RNA nearest-neighbor energy prediction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8430–8435 (2016).
pubmed: 27402765
Ford, A. S., Weitzner, B. D. & Bahl, C. D. Integration of the Rosetta suite with the python software stack via reproducible packaging and core programming interfaces for distributed simulation. Protein Sci. 29, 43–51 (2020).
pubmed: 31495995
Khatib, F. et al. Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18949–18953 (2011).
pubmed: 22065763
Hooper, W. F., Walcott, B. D., Wang, X. & Bystroff, C. Fast design of arbitrary length loops in proteins using InteractiveRosetta. BMC Bioinformatics 19, 337 (2018).
pubmed: 30249181
pmcid: 6154894