Structural templates for comparative protein docking

Structural characterization of protein‐protein interactions is important for understanding life processes. Because of the inherent limitations of experimental techniques, such characterization requires computational approaches. Along with the traditional protein‐protein docking (free search for a match between two proteins), comparative (template‐based) modeling of protein‐protein complexes has been gaining popularity. Its development puts an emphasis on full and partial structural similarity between the target protein monomers and the protein‐protein complexes previously determined by experimental techniques (templates). The template‐based docking relies on the quality and diversity of the template set. We present a carefully curated, nonredundant library of templates containing 4950 full structures of binary complexes and 5936 protein‐protein interfaces extracted from the full structures at 12 Å distance cut‐off. Redundancy in the libraries was removed by clustering the PDB structures based on structural similarity. The value of the clustering threshold was determined from the analysis of the clusters and the docking performance on a benchmark set. High structural quality of the interfaces in the template and validation sets was achieved by automated procedures and manual curation. The library is included in the Dockground resource for molecular recognition studies at http://dockground.bioinformatics.ku.edu . Proteins 2015; 83:1563–1570. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, 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.     

Application of docking methodologies to modeled proteins

Protein docking is essential for structural characterization of protein interactions. Besides providing the structure of protein complexes, modeling of proteins and their complexes is important for understanding the fundamental principles and specific aspects of protein interactions. The accuracy of protein modeling, in general, is still less than that of the experimental approaches. Thus, it is important to investigate the applicability of docking techniques to modeled proteins. We present new comprehensive benchmark sets of protein models for the development and validation of protein docking, as well as a systematic assessment of free and template-based docking techniques on these sets. As opposed to previous studies, the benchmark sets reflect the real case modeling/docking scenario where the accuracy of the models is assessed by the modeling procedure, without reference to the native structure (which would be unknown in practical applications). We also expanded the analysis to include docking of protein pairs where proteins have different structural accuracy. The results show that, in general, the template-based docking is less sensitive to the structural inaccuracies of the models than the free docking. The near-native docking poses generated by the template-based approach, typically, also have higher ranks than those produces by the free docking (although the free docking is indispensable in modeling the multiplicity of protein interactions in a crowded cellular environment). The results show that docking techniques are applicable to protein models in a broad range of modeling accuracy. The study provides clear guidelines for practical applications of docking to protein models.     

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.     

Protein social behavior makes a stronger signal for partner identification than surface geometry

Cells are interactive living systems where proteins movements, interactions and regulation are substantially free from centralized management. How protein physico‐chemical and geometrical properties determine who interact with whom remains far from fully understood. We show that characterizing how a protein behaves with many potential interactors in a complete cross‐docking study leads to a sharp identification of its cellular/true/native partner(s). We define a sociability index, or S‐index, reflecting whether a protein likes or not to pair with other proteins. Formally, we propose a suitable normalization function that accounts for protein sociability and we combine it with a simple interface‐based (ranking) score to discriminate partners from non‐interactors. We show that sociability is an important factor and that the normalization permits to reach a much higher discriminative power than shape complementarity docking scores. The social effect is also observed with more sophisticated docking algorithms. Docking conformations are evaluated using experimental binding sites. These latter approximate in the best possible way binding sites predictions, which have reached high accuracy in recent years. This makes our analysis helpful for a global understanding of partner identification and for suggesting discriminating strategies. These results contradict previous findings claiming the partner identification problem being solvable solely with geometrical docking. Proteins 2016; 85:137–154. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

How to choose templates for modeling of protein complexes: Insights from benchmarking template-based docking

Comparative docking is based on experimentally determined structures of protein-protein complexes (templates), following the paradigm that proteins with similar sequences and/or structures form similar complexes. Modeling utilizing structure similarity of target monomers to template complexes significantly expands structural coverage of the interactome. Template-based docking by structure alignment can be performed for the entire structures or by aligning targets to the bound interfaces of the experimentally determined complexes. Systematic benchmarking of docking protocols based on full and interface structure alignment showed that both protocols perform similarly, with top 1 docking success rate 26%. However, in terms of the models' quality, the interface-based docking performed marginally better. The interface-based docking is preferable when one would suspect a significant conformational change in the full protein structure upon binding, for example, a rearrangement of the domains in multidomain proteins. Importantly, if the same structure is selected as the top template by both full and interface alignment, the docking success rate increases 2-fold for both top 1 and top 10 predictions. Matching structural annotations of the target and template proteins for template detection, as a computationally less expensive alternative to structural alignment, did not improve the docking performance. Sophisticated remote sequence homology detection added templates to the pool of those identified by structure-based alignment, suggesting that for practical docking, the combination of the structure alignment protocols and the remote sequence homology detection may be useful in order to avoid potential flaws in generation of the structural templates library.     

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.     

Intuitive,but not simple: Including explicit water molecules in protein–protein docking simulations improves model quality

Characterizing the nature of interaction between proteins that have not been experimentally cocrystallized requires a computational docking approach that can successfully predict the spatial conformation adopted in the complex. In this work, the Hydropathic INTeractions (HINT) force field model was used for scoring docked models in a data set of 30 high‐resolution crystallographically characterized “dry” protein–protein complexes and was shown to reliably identify native‐like models. However, most current protein–protein docking algorithms fail to explicitly account for water molecules involved in bridging interactions that mediate and stabilize the association of the protein partners, so we used HINT to illuminate the physical and chemical properties of bridging waters and account for their energetic stabilizing contributions. The HINT water Relevance metric identified the “truly” bridging waters at the 30 protein–protein interfaces and we utilized them in “solvated” docking by manually inserting them into the input files for the rigid body ZDOCK program. By accounting for these interfacial waters, a statistically significant improvement of ～24% in the average hit‐count within the top‐10 predictions the protein–protein dataset was seen, compared to standard “dry” docking. The results also show scoring improvement, with medium and high accuracy models ranking much better than incorrect ones. These improvements can be attributed to the physical presence of water molecules that alter surface properties and better represent native shape and hydropathic complementarity between interacting partners, with concomitantly more accurate native‐like structure predictions. Proteins 2014; 82:916–932. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

iATTRACT: Simultaneous global and local interface optimization for protein–protein docking refinement

Protein‐protein interactions are abundant in the cell but to date structural data for a large number of complexes is lacking. Computational docking methods can complement experiments by providing structural models of complexes based on structures of the individual partners. A major caveat for docking success is accounting for protein flexibility. Especially, interface residues undergo significant conformational changes upon binding. This limits the performance of docking methods that keep partner structures rigid or allow limited flexibility. A new docking refinement approach, iATTRACT, has been developed which combines simultaneous full interface flexibility and rigid body optimizations during docking energy minimization. It employs an atomistic molecular mechanics force field for intermolecular interface interactions and a structure‐based force field for intramolecular contributions. The approach was systematically evaluated on a large protein‐protein docking benchmark, starting from an enriched decoy set of rigidly docked protein–protein complexes deviating by up to 15 Å from the native structure at the interface. Large improvements in sampling and slight but significant improvements in scoring/discrimination of near native docking solutions were observed. Complexes with initial deviations at the interface of up to 5.5 Å were refined to significantly better agreement with the native structure. Improvements in the fraction of native contacts were especially favorable, yielding increases of up to 70%. Proteins 2015; 83:248–258. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Gene ontology improves template selection in comparative protein docking

Structural characterization of protein-protein interactions is essential for our ability to study life processes at the molecular level. Computational modeling of protein complexes (protein docking) is important as the source of their structure and as a way to understand the principles of protein interaction. Rapidly evolving comparative docking approaches utilize target/template similarity metrics, which are often based on the protein structure. Although the structural similarity, generally, yields good performance, other characteristics of the interacting proteins (eg, function, biological process, and localization) may improve the prediction quality, especially in the case of weak target/template structural similarity. For the ranking of a pool of models for each target, we tested scoring functions that quantify similarity of Gene Ontology (GO) terms assigned to target and template proteins in three ontology domains—biological process, molecular function, and cellular component (GO-score). The scoring functions were tested in docking of bound, unbound, and modeled proteins. The results indicate that the combined structural and GO-terms functions improve the scoring, especially in the twilight zone of structural similarity, typical for protein models of limited accuracy.     

Macromolecular docking restrained by a small angle X-ray scattering profile

While many structures of single protein components are becoming available, structural characterization of their complexes remains challenging. Methods for modeling assembly structures from individual components frequently suffer from large errors, due to protein flexibility and inaccurate scoring functions. However, when additional information is available, it may be possible to reduce the errors and compute near-native complex structures. One such type of information is a small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) profile that can be collected in a high-throughput fashion from a small amount of sample in solution. Here, we present an efficient method for protein–protein docking with a SAXS profile (FoXSDock): generation of complex models by rigid global docking with PatchDock, filtering of the models based on the SAXS profile, clustering of the models, and refining the interface by flexible docking with FireDock. FoXSDock is benchmarked on 124 protein complexes with simulated SAXS profiles, as well as on 6 complexes with experimentally determined SAXS profiles. When induced fit is less than 1.5 Å interface C_α RMSD and the fraction residues of missing from the component structures is less than 3%, FoXSDock can find a model close to the native structure within the top 10 predictions in 77% of the cases; in comparison, docking alone succeeds in only 34% of the cases. Thus, the integrative approach significantly improves on molecular docking alone. The improvement arises from an increased resolution of rigid docking sampling and more accurate scoring.     

DockTrina: Docking triangular protein trimers

In spite of the abundance of oligomeric proteins within a cell, the structural characterization of protein–protein interactions is still a challenging task. In particular, many of these interactions involve heteromeric complexes, which are relatively difficult to determine experimentally. Hence there is growing interest in using computational techniques to model such complexes. However, assembling large heteromeric complexes computationally is a highly combinatorial problem. Nonetheless the problem can be simplified greatly by considering interactions between protein trimers. After dimers and monomers, triangular trimers (i.e. trimers with pair‐wise contacts between all three pairs of proteins) are the most frequently observed quaternary structural motifs according to the three‐dimensional (3D) complex database. This article presents DockTrina, a novel protein docking method for modeling the 3D structures of nonsymmetrical triangular trimers. The method takes as input pair‐wise contact predictions from a rigid body docking program. It then scans and scores all possible combinations of pairs of monomers using a very fast root mean square deviation test. Finally, it ranks the predictions using a scoring function which combines triples of pair‐wise contact terms and a geometric clash penalty term. The overall approach takes less than 2 min per complex on a modern desktop computer. The method is tested and validated using a benchmark set of 220 bound and seven unbound protein trimer structures. DockTrina will be made available at http://nano‐d.inrialpes.fr/software/docktrina . Proteins 2014; 82:34–44. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A simple reference state makes a significant improvement in near-native selections from structurally refined docking decoys

Near-native selections from docking decoys have proved challenging especially when unbound proteins are used in the molecular docking. One reason is that significant atomic clashes in docking decoys lead to poor predictions of binding affinities of near native decoys. Atomic clashes can be removed by structural refinement through energy minimization. Such an energy minimization, however, will lead to an unrealistic bias toward docked structures with large interfaces. Here, we extend an empirical energy function developed for protein design to protein-protein docking selection by introducing a simple reference state that removes the unrealistic dependence of binding affinity of docking decoys on the buried solvent accessible surface area of interface. The energy function called EMPIRE (EMpirical Protein-InteRaction Energy), when coupled with a refinement strategy, is found to provide a significantly improved success rate in near native selections when applied to RosettaDock and refined ZDOCK docking decoys. Our work underlines the importance of removing nonspecific interactions from specific ones in near native selections from docking decoys.     

Great interactions: How binding incorrect partners can teach us about protein recognition and function

Protein–protein interactions play a key part in most biological processes and understanding their mechanism is a fundamental problem leading to numerous practical applications. The prediction of protein binding sites in particular is of paramount importance since proteins now represent a major class of therapeutic targets. Amongst others methods, docking simulations between two proteins known to interact can be a useful tool for the prediction of likely binding patches on a protein surface. From the analysis of the protein interfaces generated by a massive cross‐docking experiment using the 168 proteins of the Docking Benchmark 2.0, where all possible protein pairs, and not only experimental ones, have been docked together, we show that it is also possible to predict a protein's binding residues without having any prior knowledge regarding its potential interaction partners. Evaluating the performance of cross‐docking predictions using the area under the specificity‐sensitivity ROC curve (AUC) leads to an AUC value of 0.77 for the complete benchmark (compared to the 0.5 AUC value obtained for random predictions). Furthermore, a new clustering analysis performed on the binding patches that are scattered on the protein surface show that their distribution and growth will depend on the protein's functional group. Finally, in several cases, the binding‐site predictions resulting from the cross‐docking simulations will lead to the identification of an alternate interface, which corresponds to the interaction with a biomolecular partner that is not included in the original benchmark. Proteins 2016; 84:1408–1421. © 2016 The Authors Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A benchmark testing ground for integrating homology modeling and protein docking

Protein docking procedures carry out the task of predicting the structure of a protein–protein complex starting from the known structures of the individual protein components. More often than not, however, the structure of one or both components is not known, but can be derived by homology modeling on the basis of known structures of related proteins deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Thus, the problem is to develop methods that optimally integrate homology modeling and docking with the goal of predicting the structure of a complex directly from the amino acid sequences of its component proteins. One possibility is to use the best available homology modeling and docking methods. However, the models built for the individual subunits often differ to a significant degree from the bound conformation in the complex, often much more so than the differences observed between free and bound structures of the same protein, and therefore additional conformational adjustments, both at the backbone and side chain levels need to be modeled to achieve an accurate docking prediction. In particular, even homology models of overall good accuracy frequently include localized errors that unfavorably impact docking results. The predicted reliability of the different regions in the model can also serve as a useful input for the docking calculations. Here we present a benchmark dataset that should help to explore and solve combined modeling and docking problems. This dataset comprises a subset of the experimentally solved ‘target’ complexes from the widely used Docking Benchmark from the Weng Lab (excluding antibody–antigen complexes). This subset is extended to include the structures from the PDB related to those of the individual components of each complex, and hence represent potential templates for investigating and benchmarking integrated homology modeling and docking approaches. Template sets can be dynamically customized by specifying ranges in sequence similarity and in PDB release dates, or using other filtering options, such as excluding sets of specific structures from the template list. Multiple sequence alignments, as well as structural alignments of the templates to their corresponding subunits in the target are also provided. The resource is accessible online or can be downloaded at http://cluspro.org/benchmark , and is updated on a weekly basis in synchrony with new PDB releases. Proteins 2016; 85:10–16. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

GWYRE: A Resource for Mapping Variants onto Experimental and Modeled Structures of Human Protein Complexes

Rapid progress in structural modeling of proteins and their interactions is powered by advances in knowledge-based methodologies along with better understanding of physical principles of protein structure and function. The pool of structural data for modeling of proteins and protein–protein complexes is constantly increasing due to the rapid growth of protein interaction databases and Protein Data Bank. The GWYRE (Genome Wide PhYRE) project capitalizes on these developments by advancing and applying new powerful modeling methodologies to structural modeling of protein–protein interactions and genetic variation. The methods integrate knowledge-based tertiary structure prediction using Phyre2 and quaternary structure prediction using template-based docking by a full-structure alignment protocol to generate models for binary complexes. The predictions are incorporated in a comprehensive public resource for structural characterization of the human interactome and the location of human genetic variants. The GWYRE resource facilitates better understanding of principles of protein interaction and structure/function relationships. The resource is available at http://www.gwyre.org.     

Optimized distance‐dependent atom‐pair‐based potential DOOP for protein structure prediction

The DOcking decoy‐based Optimized Potential (DOOP) energy function for protein structure prediction is based on empirical distance‐dependent atom‐pair interactions. To optimize the atom‐pair interactions, native protein structures are decomposed into polypeptide chain segments that correspond to structural motives involving complete secondary structure elements. They constitute near native ligand–receptor systems (or just pairs). Thus, a total of 8609 ligand–receptor systems were prepared from 954 selected proteins. For each of these hypothetical ligand–receptor systems, 1000 evenly sampled docking decoys with 0–10 Å interface root‐mean‐square‐deviation (iRMSD) were generated with a method used before for protein–protein docking. A neural network‐based optimization method was applied to derive the optimized energy parameters using these decoys so that the energy function mimics the funnel‐like energy landscape for the interaction between these hypothetical ligand–receptor systems. Thus, our method hierarchically models the overall funnel‐like energy landscape of native protein structures. The resulting energy function was tested on several commonly used decoy sets for native protein structure recognition and compared with other statistical potentials. In combination with a torsion potential term which describes the local conformational preference, the atom‐pair‐based potential outperforms other reported statistical energy functions in correct ranking of native protein structures for a variety of decoy sets. This is especially the case for the most challenging ROSETTA decoy set, although it does not take into account side chain orientation‐dependence explicitly. The DOOP energy function for protein structure prediction, the underlying database of protein structures with hypothetical ligand–receptor systems and their decoys are freely available at http://agknapp.chemie.fu‐berlin.de/doop/ . Proteins 2015; 83:881–890. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

BSP-SLIM: a blind low-resolution ligand-protein docking approach using predicted protein structures

We developed BSP‐SLIM, a new method for ligand–protein blind docking using low‐resolution protein structures. For a given sequence, protein structures are first predicted by I‐TASSER; putative ligand binding sites are transferred from holo‐template structures which are analogous to the I‐TASSER models; ligand–protein docking conformations are then constructed by shape and chemical match of ligand with the negative image of binding pockets. BSP‐SLIM was tested on 71 ligand–protein complexes from the Astex diverse set where the protein structures were predicted by I‐TASSER with an average RMSD 2.92 Å on the binding residues. Using I‐TASSER models, the median ligand RMSD of BSP‐SLIM docking is 3.99 Å which is 5.94 Å lower than that by AutoDock; the median binding‐site error by BSP‐SLIM is 1.77 Å which is 6.23 Å lower than that by AutoDock and 3.43 Å lower than that by LIGSITE^CSC. Compared to the models using crystal protein structures, the median ligand RMSD by BSP‐SLIM using I‐TASSER models increases by 0.87 Å, while that by AutoDock increases by 8.41 Å; the median binding‐site error by BSP‐SLIM increase by 0.69Å while that by AutoDock and LIGSITE^CSC increases by 7.31 Å and 1.41 Å, respectively. As case studies, BSP‐SLIM was used in virtual screening for six target proteins, which prioritized actives of 25% and 50% in the top 9.2% and 17% of the library on average, respectively. These results demonstrate the usefulness of the template‐based coarse‐grained algorithms in the low‐resolution ligand–protein docking and drug‐screening. An on‐line BSP‐SLIM server is freely available at http://zhanglab.ccmb.med.umich.edu/BSP‐SLIM . Proteins 2012. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Protein–protein structure prediction by scoring molecular dynamics trajectories of putative poses

The prediction of protein–protein interactions and their structural configuration remains a largely unsolved problem. Most of the algorithms aimed at finding the native conformation of a protein complex starting from the structure of its monomers are based on searching the structure corresponding to the global minimum of a suitable scoring function. However, protein complexes are often highly flexible, with mobile side chains and transient contacts due to thermal fluctuations. Flexibility can be neglected if one aims at finding quickly the approximate structure of the native complex, but may play a role in structure refinement, and in discriminating solutions characterized by similar scores. We here benchmark the capability of some state‐of‐the‐art scoring functions (BACH‐SixthSense, PIE/PISA and Rosetta) in discriminating finite‐temperature ensembles of structures corresponding to the native state and to non‐native configurations. We produce the ensembles by running thousands of molecular dynamics simulations in explicit solvent starting from poses generated by rigid docking and optimized in vacuum. We find that while Rosetta outperformed the other two scoring functions in scoring the structures in vacuum, BACH‐SixthSense and PIE/PISA perform better in distinguishing near‐native ensembles of structures generated by molecular dynamics in explicit solvent. Proteins 2016; 84:1312–1320. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.