Modeling repetitive,non‐globular proteins

While ab initio modeling of protein structures is not routine, certain types of proteins are more straightforward to model than others. Proteins with short repetitive sequences typically exhibit repetitive structures. These repetitive sequences can be more amenable to modeling if some information is known about the predominant secondary structure or other key features of the protein sequence. We have successfully built models of a number of repetitive structures with novel folds using knowledge of the consensus sequence within the sequence repeat and an understanding of the likely secondary structures that these may adopt. Our methods for achieving this success are reviewed here.     

Toward the solution of the protein structure prediction problem

Since Anfinsen demonstrated that the information encoded in a protein’s amino acid sequence determines its structure in 1973, solving the protein structure prediction problem has been the Holy Grail of structural biology. The goal of protein structure prediction approaches is to utilize computational modeling to determine the spatial location of every atom in a protein molecule starting from only its amino acid sequence. Depending on whether homologous structures can be found in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), structure prediction methods have been historically categorized as template-based modeling (TBM) or template-free modeling (FM) approaches. Until recently, TBM has been the most reliable approach to predicting protein structures, and in the absence of reliable templates, the modeling accuracy sharply declines. Nevertheless, the results of the most recent community-wide assessment of protein structure prediction experiment (CASP14) have demonstrated that the protein structure prediction problem can be largely solved through the use of end-to-end deep machine learning techniques, where correct folds could be built for nearly all single-domain proteins without using the PDB templates. Critically, the model quality exhibited little correlation with the quality of available template structures, as well as the number of sequence homologs detected for a given target protein. Thus, the implementation of deep-learning techniques has essentially broken through the 50-year-old modeling border between TBM and FM approaches and has made the success of high-resolution structure prediction significantly less dependent on template availability in the PDB library.     

Assessment of protein side‐chain conformation prediction methods in different residue environments

Computational prediction of side‐chain conformation is an important component of protein structure prediction. Accurate side‐chain prediction is crucial for practical applications of protein structure models that need atomic‐detailed resolution such as protein and ligand design. We evaluated the accuracy of eight side‐chain prediction methods in reproducing the side‐chain conformations of experimentally solved structures deposited to the Protein Data Bank. Prediction accuracy was evaluated for a total of four different structural environments (buried, surface, interface, and membrane‐spanning) in three different protein types (monomeric, multimeric, and membrane). Overall, the highest accuracy was observed for buried residues in monomeric and multimeric proteins. Notably, side‐chains at protein interfaces and membrane‐spanning regions were better predicted than surface residues even though the methods did not all use multimeric and membrane proteins for training. Thus, we conclude that the current methods are as practically useful for modeling protein docking interfaces and membrane‐spanning regions as for modeling monomers. Proteins 2014; 82:1971–1984. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Structure alignment of membrane proteins: Accuracy of available tools and a consensus strategy

Protein structure alignment methods are used for the detection of evolutionary and functionally related positions in proteins. A wide array of different methods are available, but the choice of the best method is often not apparent to the user. Several studies have assessed the alignment accuracy and consistency of structure alignment methods, but none of these explicitly considered membrane proteins, which are important targets for drug development and have distinct structural features. Here, we compared 13 widely used pairwise structural alignment methods on a test set of homologous membrane protein structures (called HOMEP3). Each pair of structures was aligned and the corresponding sequence alignment was used to construct homology models. The model accuracy compared to the known structures was assessed using scoring functions not incorporated in the tested structural alignment methods. The analysis shows that fragment‐based approaches such as FR‐TM‐align are the most useful for aligning structures of membrane proteins. Moreover, fragment‐based approaches are more suitable for comparison of protein structures that have undergone large conformational changes. Nevertheless, no method was clearly superior to all other methods. Additionally, all methods lack a measure to rate the reliability of a position within a structure alignment. To solve both of these problems, we propose a consensus‐type approach, combining alignments from four different methods, namely FR‐TM‐align, DaliLite, MATT, and FATCAT. Agreement between the methods is used to assign confidence values to each position of the alignment. Overall, we conclude that there remains scope for the improvement of structural alignment methods for membrane proteins. Proteins 2015; 83:1720–1732. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The Protein Model Portal

Structural Genomics has been successful in determining the structures of many unique proteins in a high throughput manner. Still, the number of known protein sequences is much larger than the number of experimentally solved protein structures. Homology (or comparative) modeling methods make use of experimental protein structures to build models for evolutionary related proteins. Thereby, experimental structure determination efforts and homology modeling complement each other in the exploration of the protein structure space. One of the challenges in using model information effectively has been to access all models available for a specific protein in heterogeneous formats at different sites using various incompatible accession code systems. Often, structure models for hundreds of proteins can be derived from a given experimentally determined structure, using a variety of established methods. This has been done by all of the PSI centers, and by various independent modeling groups. The goal of the Protein Model Portal (PMP) is to provide a single portal which gives access to the various models that can be leveraged from PSI targets and other experimental protein structures. A single interface allows all existing pre-computed models across these various sites to be queried simultaneously, and provides links to interactive services for template selection, target-template alignment, model building, and quality assessment. The current release of the portal consists of 7.6 million model structures provided by different partner resources (CSMP, JCSG, MCSG, NESG, NYSGXRC, JCMM, ModBase, SWISS-MODEL Repository). The PMP is available at and from the PSI Structural Genomics Knowledgebase.     

A comparative study of available software for high-accuracy homology modeling: from sequence alignments to structural models

An open question in protein homology modeling is, how well do current modeling packages satisfy the dual criteria of quality of results and practical ease of use? To address this question objectively, we examined homology‐built models of a variety of therapeutically relevant proteins. The sequence identities across these proteins range from 19% to 76%. A novel metric, the difference alignment index (DAI), is developed to aid in quantifying the quality of local sequence alignments. The DAI is also used to construct the relative sequence alignment (RSA), a new representation of global sequence alignment that facilitates comparison of sequence alignments from different methods. Comparisons of the sequence alignments in terms of the RSA and alignment methodologies are made to better understand the advantages and caveats of each method. All sequence alignments and corresponding 3D models are compared to their respective structure‐based alignments and crystal structures. A variety of protein modeling software was used. We find that at sequence identities >40%, all packages give similar (and satisfactory) results; at lower sequence identities (<25%), the sequence alignments generated by Profit and Prime, which incorporate structural information in their sequence alignment, stand out from the rest. Moreover, the model generated by Prime in this low sequence identity region is noted to be superior to the rest. Additionally, we note that DSModeler and MOE, which generate reasonable models for sequence identities >25%, are significantly more functional and easier to use when compared with the other structure‐building software.     

CONFOLD: Residue‐residue contact‐guided ab initio protein folding

Predicted protein residue–residue contacts can be used to build three‐dimensional models and consequently to predict protein folds from scratch. A considerable amount of effort is currently being spent to improve contact prediction accuracy, whereas few methods are available to construct protein tertiary structures from predicted contacts. Here, we present an ab initio protein folding method to build three‐dimensional models using predicted contacts and secondary structures. Our method first translates contacts and secondary structures into distance, dihedral angle, and hydrogen bond restraints according to a set of new conversion rules, and then provides these restraints as input for a distance geometry algorithm to build tertiary structure models. The initially reconstructed models are used to regenerate a set of physically realistic contact restraints and detect secondary structure patterns, which are then used to reconstruct final structural models. This unique two‐stage modeling approach of integrating contacts and secondary structures improves the quality and accuracy of structural models and in particular generates better β‐sheets than other algorithms. We validate our method on two standard benchmark datasets using true contacts and secondary structures. Our method improves TM‐score of reconstructed protein models by 45% and 42% over the existing method on the two datasets, respectively. On the dataset for benchmarking reconstructions methods with predicted contacts and secondary structures, the average TM‐score of best models reconstructed by our method is 0.59, 5.5% higher than the existing method. The CONFOLD web server is available at http://protein.rnet.missouri.edu/confold/ . Proteins 2015; 83:1436–1449. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Protein models: The Grand Challenge of protein docking

Characterization of life processes at the molecular level requires structural details of protein–protein interactions (PPIs). The number of experimentally determined protein structures accounts only for a fraction of known proteins. This gap has to be bridged by modeling, typically using experimentally determined structures as templates to model related proteins. The fraction of experimentally determined PPI structures is even smaller than that for the individual proteins, due to a larger number of interactions than the number of individual proteins, and a greater difficulty of crystallizing protein–protein complexes. The approaches to structural modeling of PPI (docking) often have to rely on modeled structures of the interactors, especially in the case of large PPI networks. Structures of modeled proteins are typically less accurate than the ones determined by X‐ray crystallography or nuclear magnetic resonance. Thus the utility of approaches to dock these structures should be assessed by thorough benchmarking, specifically designed for protein models. To be credible, such benchmarking has to be based on carefully curated sets of structures with levels of distortion typical for modeled proteins. This article presents such a suite of models built for the benchmark set of the X‐ray structures from the Dockground resource ( http://dockground.bioinformatics.ku.edu ) by a combination of homology modeling and Nudged Elastic Band method. For each monomer, six models were generated with predefined C^α root mean square deviation from the native structure (1, 2, …, 6 Å). The sets and the accompanying data provide a comprehensive resource for the development of docking methodology for modeled proteins. Proteins 2014; 82:278–287. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparison of Composer and ORCHESTRAR

Although the number of known protein structures is increasing, the number of protein sequences without determined structures is still much larger. Three-dimensional (3D) protein structure information helps in the understanding of functional mechanisms, but solving structures by X-ray crystallography or NMR is often a lengthy and difficult process. A relatively fast way of determining a protein's 3D structure is to construct a computer model using homologous sequence and structure information. Much work has gone into algorithms that comprise the ORCHESTRAR homology modeling program in the SYBYL software package. This novel homology modeling tool combines algorithms for modeling conserved cores, variable regions, and side chains. The paradigm of using existing knowledge from multiple templates and the underlying protein environment knowledgebase is used in all of these algorithms, and will become even more powerful as the number of experimentally derived protein structures increases. To determine how ORCHESTRAR compares to Composer (a broadly used, but an older tool), homology models of 18 proteins were constructed using each program so that a detailed comparison of each step in the modeling process could be carried out. Proteins modeled include kinases, dihydrofolate reductase, HIV protease, and factor Xa. In almost all cases ORCHESTRAR produces models with lower root-mean-squared deviation (RMSD) values when compared with structures determined by X-ray crystallography or NMR. Moreover, ORCHESTRAR produced a homology model for three target sequences where Composer failed to produce any. Data for RMSD comparisons between structurally conserved cores, structurally variable regions, side-chain conformations are presented, as well as analyses of active site and protein-protein interface configurations.     

Fragment‐based modeling of membrane protein loops: Successes,failures, and prospects for the future

Membrane proteins (MPs) have become a major focus in structure prediction, due to their medical importance. There is, however, a lack of fast and reliable methods that specialize in the modeling of MP loops. Often methods designed for soluble proteins (SPs) are applied directly to MPs. In this article, we investigate the validity of such an approach in the realm of fragment‐based methods. We also examined the differences in membrane and soluble protein loops that might affect accuracy. We test our ability to predict soluble and MP loops with the previously published method FREAD. We show that it is possible to predict accurately the structure of MP loops using a database of MP fragments (0.5–1 Å median root‐mean‐square deviation). The presence of homologous proteins in the database helps prediction accuracy. However, even when homologues are removed better results are still achieved using fragments of MPs (0.8–1.6 Å) rather than SPs (1–4 Å) to model MP loops. We find that many fragments of SPs have shapes similar to their MP counterparts but have very different sequences; however, they do not appear to differ in their substitution patterns. Our findings may allow further improvements to fragment‐based loop modeling algorithms for MPs. The current version of our proof‐of‐concept loop modeling protocol produces high‐accuracy loop models for MPs and is available as a web server at http://medeller.info/fread . Proteins 2014; 82:175–186. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Partial unfolding and refolding for structure refinement: A unified approach of geometric simulations and molecular dynamics

The most successful protein structure prediction methods to date have been template‐based modeling (TBM) or homology modeling, which predicts protein structure based on experimental structures. These high accuracy predictions sometimes retain structural errors due to incorrect templates or a lack of accurate templates in the case of low sequence similarity, making these structures inadequate in drug‐design studies or molecular dynamics simulations. We have developed a new physics based approach to the protein refinement problem by mimicking the mechanism of chaperons that rehabilitate misfolded proteins. The template structure is unfolded by selectively (targeted) pulling on different portions of the protein using the geometric based technique FRODA, and then refolded using hierarchically restrained replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations (hr‐REMD). FRODA unfolding is used to create a diverse set of topologies for surveying near native‐like structures from a template and to provide a set of persistent contacts to be employed during re‐folding. We have tested our approach on 13 previous CASP targets and observed that this method of folding an ensemble of partially unfolded structures, through the hierarchical addition of contact restraints (that is, first local and then nonlocal interactions), leads to a refolding of the structure along with refinement in most cases (12/13). Although this approach yields refined models through advancement in sampling, the task of blind selection of the best refined models still needs to be solved. Overall, the method can be useful for improved sampling for low resolution models where certain of the portions of the structure are incorrectly modeled. Proteins 2015; 83:2279–2292. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Antibody modeling assessment

A blinded study to assess the state of the art in three‐dimensional structure modeling of the variable region (Fv) of antibodies was conducted. Nine unpublished high‐resolution x‐ray Fab crystal structures covering a wide range of antigen‐binding site conformations were used as benchmark to compare Fv models generated by four structure prediction methodologies. The methodologies included two homology modeling strategies independently developed by CCG (Chemical Computer Group) and Accerlys Inc, and two fully automated antibody modeling servers: PIGS (Prediction of ImmunoGlobulin Structure), based on the canonical structure model, and Rosetta Antibody Modeling, based on homology modeling and Rosetta structure prediction methodology. The benchmark structure sequences were submitted to Accelrys and CCG and a set of models for each of the nine antibody structures were generated. PIGS and Rosetta models were obtained using the default parameters of the servers. In most cases, we found good agreement between the models and x‐ray structures. The average rmsd (root mean square deviation) values calculated over the backbone atoms between the models and structures were fairly consistent, around 1.2 Å. Average rmsd values of the framework and hypervariable loops with canonical structures (L1, L2, L3, H1, and H2) were close to 1.0 Å. H3 prediction yielded rmsd values around 3.0 Å for most of the models. Quality assessment of the models and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the methods are discussed. We hope this initiative will serve as a model of scientific partnership and look forward to future antibody modeling assessments. Proteins 2011; © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Protein models docking benchmark 2

Structural characterization of protein–protein interactions is essential for our ability to understand life processes. However, only a fraction of known proteins have experimentally determined structures. Such structures provide templates for modeling of a large part of the proteome, where individual proteins can be docked by template‐free or template‐based techniques. Still, the sensitivity of the docking methods to the inherent inaccuracies of protein models, as opposed to the experimentally determined high‐resolution structures, remains largely untested, primarily due to the absence of appropriate benchmark set(s). Structures in such a set should have predefined inaccuracy levels and, at the same time, resemble actual protein models in terms of structural motifs/packing. The set should also be large enough to ensure statistical reliability of the benchmarking results. We present a major update of the previously developed benchmark set of protein models. For each interactor, six models were generated with the model‐to‐native C^α RMSD in the 1 to 6 Å range. The models in the set were generated by a new approach, which corresponds to the actual modeling of new protein structures in the “real case scenario,” as opposed to the previous set, where a significant number of structures were model‐like only. In addition, the larger number of complexes (165 vs. 63 in the previous set) increases the statistical reliability of the benchmarking. We estimated the highest accuracy of the predicted complexes (according to CAPRI criteria), which can be attained using the benchmark structures. The set is available at http://dockground.bioinformatics.ku.edu . Proteins 2015; 83:891–897. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Computational modeling of membrane proteins

The determination of membrane protein (MP) structures has always trailed that of soluble proteins due to difficulties in their overexpression, reconstitution into membrane mimetics, and subsequent structure determination. The percentage of MP structures in the protein databank (PDB) has been at a constant 1–2% for the last decade. In contrast, over half of all drugs target MPs, only highlighting how little we understand about drug‐specific effects in the human body. To reduce this gap, researchers have attempted to predict structural features of MPs even before the first structure was experimentally elucidated. In this review, we present current computational methods to predict MP structure, starting with secondary structure prediction, prediction of trans‐membrane spans, and topology. Even though these methods generate reliable predictions, challenges such as predicting kinks or precise beginnings and ends of secondary structure elements are still waiting to be addressed. We describe recent developments in the prediction of 3D structures of both α‐helical MPs as well as β‐barrels using comparative modeling techniques, de novo methods, and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. The increase of MP structures has (1) facilitated comparative modeling due to availability of more and better templates, and (2) improved the statistics for knowledge‐based scoring functions. Moreover, de novo methods have benefited from the use of correlated mutations as restraints. Finally, we outline current advances that will likely shape the field in the forthcoming decade. Proteins 2015; 83:1–24. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Protein tertiary structure modeling driven by deep learning and contact distance prediction in CASP13

Predicting residue-residue distance relationships (eg, contacts) has become the key direction to advance protein structure prediction since 2014 CASP11 experiment, while deep learning has revolutionized the technology for contact and distance distribution prediction since its debut in 2012 CASP10 experiment. During 2018 CASP13 experiment, we enhanced our MULTICOM protein structure prediction system with three major components: contact distance prediction based on deep convolutional neural networks, distance-driven template-free (ab initio) modeling, and protein model ranking empowered by deep learning and contact prediction. Our experiment demonstrates that contact distance prediction and deep learning methods are the key reasons that MULTICOM was ranked 3rd out of all 98 predictors in both template-free and template-based structure modeling in CASP13. Deep convolutional neural network can utilize global information in pairwise residue-residue features such as coevolution scores to substantially improve contact distance prediction, which played a decisive role in correctly folding some free modeling and hard template-based modeling targets. Deep learning also successfully integrated one-dimensional structural features, two-dimensional contact information, and three-dimensional structural quality scores to improve protein model quality assessment, where the contact prediction was demonstrated to consistently enhance ranking of protein models for the first time. The success of MULTICOM system clearly shows that protein contact distance prediction and model selection driven by deep learning holds the key of solving protein structure prediction problem. However, there are still challenges in accurately predicting protein contact distance when there are few homologous sequences, folding proteins from noisy contact distances, and ranking models of hard targets.     

Structural quality of unrefined models in protein docking

Structural characterization of protein‐protein interactions is essential for understanding life processes at the molecular level. However, only a fraction of protein interactions have experimentally resolved structures. Thus, reliable computational methods for structural modeling of protein interactions (protein docking) are important for generating such structures and understanding the principles of protein recognition. Template‐based docking techniques that utilize structural similarity between target protein‐protein interaction and cocrystallized protein‐protein complexes (templates) are gaining popularity due to generally higher reliability than that of the template‐free docking. However, the template‐based approach lacks explicit penalties for intermolecular penetration, as opposed to the typical free docking where such penalty is inherent due to the shape complementarity paradigm. Thus, template‐based docking models are commonly assumed to require special treatment to remove large structural penetrations. In this study, we compared clashes in the template‐based and free docking of the same proteins, with crystallographically determined and modeled structures. The results show that for the less accurate protein models, free docking produces fewer clashes than the template‐based approach. However, contrary to the common expectation, in acceptable and better quality docking models of unbound crystallographically determined proteins, the clashes in the template‐based docking are comparable to those in the free docking, due to the overall higher quality of the template‐based docking predictions. This suggests that the free docking refinement protocols can in principle be applied to the template‐based docking predictions as well. Proteins 2016; 85:39–45. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Assessment of 3D models for allergen research

Allergenic proteins must crosslink specific IgE molecules, bound to the surface of mast cells and basophils, to stimulate an immune response. A structural understanding of the allergen–IgE interface is needed to predict cross‐reactivities between allergens and to design hypoallergenic proteins. However, there are less than 90 experimentally determined structures available for the approximately 1500 sequences of allergens and isoallergens cataloged in the Structural Database of Allergenic Proteins. To provide reliable structural data for the remaining proteins, we previously produced more than 500 3D models using an automated procedure, with strict controls on template choice and model quality evaluation. Here, we assessed how well the fold and residue surface exposure of 10 of these models correlated with recently published experimental 3D structures determined by X‐ray crystallography or NMR. We also discuss the impact of intrinsically disordered regions on the structural comparison and epitope prediction. Overall, for seven allergens with sequence identities to the original templates higher than 27%, the backbone root‐mean square deviations were less than 2 Å between the models and the subsequently determined experimental structures for the ordered regions. Further, the surface exposure of the known IgE epitopes on the models of three major allergens, from peanut (Ara h 1), latex (Hev b 2), and soy (Gly m 4), was very similar to the experimentally determined structures. For the three remaining allergens with lower sequence identities to the modeling templates, the 3D folds were correctly identified. However, the accuracy of those models is not sufficient for a reliable epitope mapping. © Proteins 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

REMO: A new protocol to refine full atomic protein models from C‐alpha traces by optimizing hydrogen‐bonding networks

Protein structure prediction approaches usually perform modeling simulations based on reduced representation of protein structures. For biological utilizations, it is an important step to construct full atomic models from the reduced structure decoys. Most of the current full atomic model reconstruction procedures have defects which either could not completely remove the steric clashes among backbone atoms or generate final atomic models with worse topology similarity relative to the native structures than the reduced models. In this work, we develop a new protocol, called REMO, to generate full atomic protein models by optimizing the hydrogen‐bonding network with basic fragments matched from a newly constructed backbone isomer library of solved protein structures. The algorithm is benchmarked on 230 nonhomologous proteins with reduced structure decoys generated by I‐TASSER simulations. The results show that REMO has a significant ability to remove steric clashes, and meanwhile retains good topology of the reduced model. The hydrogen‐bonding network of the final models is dramatically improved during the procedure. The REMO algorithm has been exploited in the recent CASP8 experiment which demonstrated significant improvements of the I‐TASSER models in both atomic‐level structural refinement and hydrogen‐bonding network construction. Proteins 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

A multiple-template approach to protein threading

Most threading methods predict the structure of a protein using only a single template. Due to the increasing number of solved structures, a protein without solved structure is very likely to have more than one similar template structures. Therefore, a natural question to ask is if we can improve modeling accuracy using multiple templates. This article describes a new multiple-template threading method to answer this question. At the heart of this multiple-template threading method is a novel probabilistic-consistency algorithm that can accurately align a single protein sequence simultaneously to multiple templates. Experimental results indicate that our multiple-template method can improve pairwise sequence-template alignment accuracy and generate models with better quality than single-template models even if they are built from the best single templates (P-value <10(-6)) while many popular multiple sequence/structure alignment tools fail to do so. The underlying reason is that our probabilistic-consistency algorithm can generate accurate multiple sequence/template alignments. In another word, without an accurate multiple sequence/template alignment, the modeling accuracy cannot be improved by simply using multiple templates to increase alignment coverage. Blindly tested on the CASP9 targets with more than one good template structures, our method outperforms all other CASP9 servers except two (Zhang-Server and QUARK of the same group). Our probabilistic-consistency algorithm can possibly be extended to align multiple protein/RNA sequences and structures.     

Extracting knowledge from protein structure geometry

Protein structure prediction techniques proceed in two steps, namely the generation of many structural models for the protein of interest, followed by an evaluation of all these models to identify those that are native‐like. In theory, the second step is easy, as native structures correspond to minima of their free energy surfaces. It is well known however that the situation is more complicated as the current force fields used for molecular simulations fail to recognize native states from misfolded structures. In an attempt to solve this problem, we follow an alternate approach and derive a new potential from geometric knowledge extracted from native and misfolded conformers of protein structures. This new potential, Metric Protein Potential (MPP), has two main features that are key to its success. Firstly, it is composite in that it includes local and nonlocal geometric information on proteins. At the short range level, it captures and quantifies the mapping between the sequences and structures of short (7‐mer) fragments of protein backbones through the introduction of a new local energy term. The local energy term is then augmented with a nonlocal residue‐based pairwise potential, and a solvent potential. Secondly, it is optimized to yield a maximized correlation between the energy of a structural model and its root mean square (RMS) to the native structure of the corresponding protein. We have shown that MPP yields high correlation values between RMS and energy and that it is able to retrieve the native structure of a protein from a set of high‐resolution decoys. Proteins 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.