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.     

Hidden partners: Using cross‐docking calculations to predict binding sites for proteins with multiple interactions

Protein‐protein interactions control a large range of biological processes and their identification is essential to understand the underlying biological mechanisms. To complement experimental approaches, in silico methods are available to investigate protein‐protein interactions. Cross‐docking methods, in particular, can be used to predict protein binding sites. However, proteins can interact with numerous partners and can present multiple binding sites on their surface, which may alter the binding site prediction quality. We evaluate the binding site predictions obtained using complete cross‐docking simulations of 358 proteins with 2 different scoring schemes accounting for multiple binding sites. Despite overall good binding site prediction performances, 68 cases were still associated with very low prediction quality, presenting individual area under the specificity‐sensitivity ROC curve (AUC) values below the random AUC threshold of 0.5, since cross‐docking calculations can lead to the identification of alternate protein binding sites (that are different from the reference experimental sites). For the large majority of these proteins, we show that the predicted alternate binding sites correspond to interaction sites with hidden partners, that is, partners not included in the original cross‐docking dataset. Among those new partners, we find proteins, but also nucleic acid molecules. Finally, for proteins with multiple binding sites on their surface, we investigated the structural determinants associated with the binding sites the most targeted by the docking partners.     

The mammalian complement system as an epitome of host–pathogen genetic conflicts

The complement system is an innate immunity effector mechanism; its action is antagonized by a wide array of pathogens and complement evasion determines the virulence of several infections. We investigated the evolutionary history of the complement system and of bacterial‐encoded complement‐interacting proteins. Complement components targeted by several pathogens evolved under strong selective pressure in primates, with selection acting on residues at the contact interface with microbial/viral proteins. Positively selected sites in CFH and C4BPA account for the human specificity of gonococcal infection. Bacterial interactors, evolved adaptively as well, with selected sites located at interaction surfaces with primate complement proteins. These results epitomize the expectation under a genetic conflict scenario whereby the host's and the pathogen's genes evolve within binding avoidance‐binding seeking dynamics. In silico mutagenesis and protein–protein docking analyses supported this by showing that positively selected sites, both in the host's and in the pathogen's interacting partner, modulate binding.     

Towards the prediction of protein interaction partners using physical docking

Deciphering the whole network of protein interactions for a given proteome (‘interactome’) is the goal of many experimental and computational efforts in Systems Biology. Separately the prediction of the structure of protein complexes by docking methods is a well‐established scientific area. To date, docking programs have not been used to predict interaction partners. We provide a proof of principle for such an approach. Using a set of protein complexes representing known interactors in their unbound form, we show that a standard docking program can distinguish the true interactors from a background of 922 non‐redundant potential interactors. We additionally show that true interactions can be distinguished from non‐likely interacting proteins within the same structural family. Our approach may be put in the context of the proposed ‘funnel‐energy model’; the docking algorithm may not find the native complex, but it distinguishes binding partners because of the higher probability of favourable models compared with a collection of non‐binders. The potential exists to develop this proof of principle into new approaches for predicting interaction partners and reconstructing biological networks.     

Monte Carlo replica‐exchange based ensemble docking of protein conformations

A replica‐exchange Monte Carlo (REMC) ensemble docking approach has been developed that allows efficient exploration of protein–protein docking geometries. In addition to Monte Carlo steps in translation and orientation of binding partners, possible conformational changes upon binding are included based on Monte Carlo selection of protein conformations stored as ordered pregenerated conformational ensembles. The conformational ensembles of each binding partner protein were generated by three different approaches starting from the unbound partner protein structure with a range spanning a root mean square deviation of 1–2.5 Å with respect to the unbound structure. Because MC sampling is performed to select appropriate partner conformations on the fly the approach is not limited by the number of conformations in the ensemble compared to ensemble docking of each conformer pair in ensemble cross docking. Although only a fraction of generated conformers was in closer agreement with the bound structure the REMC ensemble docking approach achieved improved docking results compared to REMC docking with only the unbound partner structures or using docking energy minimization methods. The approach has significant potential for further improvement in combination with more realistic structural ensembles and better docking scoring functions. Proteins 2017; 85:924–937. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Discovery of binding proteins for a protein target using protein–protein docking‐based virtual screening

Target structure‐based virtual screening, which employs protein‐small molecule docking to identify potential ligands, has been widely used in small‐molecule drug discovery. In the present study, we used a protein–protein docking program to identify proteins that bind to a specific target protein. In the testing phase, an all‐to‐all protein–protein docking run on a large dataset was performed. The three‐dimensional rigid docking program SDOCK was used to examine protein–protein docking on all protein pairs in the dataset. Both the binding affinity and features of the binding energy landscape were considered in the scoring function in order to distinguish positive binding pairs from negative binding pairs. Thus, the lowest docking score, the average Z‐score, and convergency of the low‐score solutions were incorporated in the analysis. The hybrid scoring function was optimized in the all‐to‐all docking test. The docking method and the hybrid scoring function were then used to screen for proteins that bind to tumor necrosis factor‐α (TNFα), which is a well‐known therapeutic target for rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. A protein library containing 677 proteins was used for the screen. Proteins with scores among the top 20% were further examined. Sixteen proteins from the top‐ranking 67 proteins were selected for experimental study. Two of these proteins showed significant binding to TNFα in an in vitro binding study. The results of the present study demonstrate the power and potential application of protein–protein docking for the discovery of novel binding proteins for specific protein targets. Proteins 2014; 82:2472–2482. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

BiPPred: Combined sequence‐ and structure‐based prediction of peptide binding to the Hsp70 chaperone BiP

Substrate binding to Hsp70 chaperones is involved in many biological processes, and the identification of potential substrates is important for a comprehensive understanding of these events. We present a multi‐scale pipeline for an accurate, yet efficient prediction of peptides binding to the Hsp70 chaperone BiP by combining sequence‐based prediction with molecular docking and MMPBSA calculations. First, we measured the binding of 15mer peptides from known substrate proteins of BiP by peptide array (PA) experiments and performed an accuracy assessment of the PA data by fluorescence anisotropy studies. Several sequence‐based prediction models were fitted using this and other peptide binding data. A structure‐based position‐specific scoring matrix (SB‐PSSM) derived solely from structural modeling data forms the core of all models. The matrix elements are based on a combination of binding energy estimations, molecular dynamics simulations, and analysis of the BiP binding site, which led to new insights into the peptide binding specificities of the chaperone. Using this SB‐PSSM, peptide binders could be predicted with high selectivity even without training of the model on experimental data. Additional training further increased the prediction accuracies. Subsequent molecular docking (DynaDock) and MMGBSA/MMPBSA‐based binding affinity estimations for predicted binders allowed the identification of the correct binding mode of the peptides as well as the calculation of nearly quantitative binding affinities. The general concept behind the developed multi‐scale pipeline can readily be applied to other protein‐peptide complexes with linearly bound peptides, for which sufficient experimental binding data for the training of classical sequence‐based prediction models is not available. Proteins 2016; 84:1390–1407. © 2016 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.     

Automated identification of binding sites for phosphorylated ligands in protein structures

Phosphorylation is a crucial step in many cellular processes, ranging from metabolic reactions involved in energy transformation to signaling cascades. In many instances, protein domains specifically recognize the phosphogroup. Knowledge of the binding site provides insights into the interaction, and it can also be exploited for therapeutic purposes. Previous studies have shown that proteins interacting with phosphogroups are highly heterogeneous, and no single property can be used to reliably identify the binding site. Here we present an energy‐based computational procedure that exploits the protein three‐dimensional structure to identify binding sites involved in the recognition of phosphogroups. The procedure is validated on three datasets containing more than 200 proteins binding to ATP, phosphopeptides, and phosphosugars. A comparison against other three generic binding site identification approaches shows higher accuracy values for our method, with a correct identification rate in the 80–90% range for the top three predicted sites. Addition of conservation information further improves the performance. The method presented here can be used as a first step in functional annotation or to guide mutagenesis experiments and further studies such as molecular docking. Proteins 2012;. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Binding interface prediction by combining protein–protein docking results

We developed a method called residue contact frequency (RCF), which uses the complex structures generated by the protein–protein docking algorithm ZDOCK to predict interface residues. Unlike interface prediction algorithms that are based on monomers alone, RCF is binding partner specific. We evaluated the performance of RCF using the area under the precision‐recall (PR) curve (AUC) on a large protein docking Benchmark. RCF (AUC = 0.44) performed as well as meta‐PPISP (AUC = 0.43), which is one of the best monomer‐based interface prediction methods. In addition, we test a support vector machine (SVM) to combine RCF with meta‐PPISP and another monomer‐based interface prediction algorithm Evolutionary Trace to further improve the performance. We found that the SVM that combined RCF and meta‐PPISP achieved the best performance (AUC = 0.47). We used RCF to predict the binding interfaces of proteins that can bind to multiple partners and RCF was able to correctly predict interface residues that are unique for the respective binding partners. Furthermore, we found that residues that contributed greatly to binding affinity (hotspot residues) had significantly higher RCF than other residues. Proteins 2014; 82:57–66. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

DockRank: Ranking docked conformations using partner‐specific sequence homology‐based protein interface prediction

Selecting near‐native conformations from the immense number of conformations generated by docking programs remains a major challenge in molecular docking. We introduce DockRank, a novel approach to scoring docked conformations based on the degree to which the interface residues of the docked conformation match a set of predicted interface residues. DockRank uses interface residues predicted by partner‐specific sequence homology‐based protein–protein interface predictor (PS‐HomPPI), which predicts the interface residues of a query protein with a specific interaction partner. We compared the performance of DockRank with several state‐of‐the‐art docking scoring functions using Success Rate (the percentage of cases that have at least one near‐native conformation among the top m conformations) and Hit Rate (the percentage of near‐native conformations that are included among the top m conformations). In cases where it is possible to obtain partner‐specific (PS) interface predictions from PS‐HomPPI, DockRank consistently outperforms both (i) ZRank and IRAD, two state‐of‐the‐art energy‐based scoring functions (improving Success Rate by up to 4‐fold); and (ii) Variants of DockRank that use predicted interface residues obtained from several protein interface predictors that do not take into account the binding partner in making interface predictions (improving success rate by up to 39‐fold). The latter result underscores the importance of using partner‐specific interface residues in scoring docked conformations. We show that DockRank, when used to re‐rank the conformations returned by ClusPro, improves upon the original ClusPro rankings in terms of both Success Rate and Hit Rate. DockRank is available as a server at http://einstein.cs.iastate.edu/DockRank/ . Proteins 2014; 82:250–267. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

DynaBiS: A hierarchical sampling algorithm to identify flexible binding sites for large ligands and peptides

Knowing the ligand or peptide binding site in proteins is highly important to guide drug discovery, but experimental elucidation of the binding site is difficult. Therefore, various computational approaches have been developed to identify potential binding sites in protein structures. However, protein and ligand flexibility are often neglected in these methods due to efficiency considerations despite the recognition that protein–ligand interactions can be strongly affected by mutual structural adaptations. This is particularly true if the binding site is unknown, as the screening will typically be performed based on an unbound protein structure. Herein we present DynaBiS, a hierarchical sampling algorithm to identify flexible binding sites for a target ligand with explicit consideration of protein and ligand flexibility, inspired by our previously presented flexible docking algorithm DynaDock. DynaBiS applies soft-core potentials between the ligand and the protein, thereby allowing a certain protein–ligand overlap resulting in efficient sampling of conformational adaptation effects. We evaluated DynaBiS and other commonly used binding site identification algorithms against a diverse evaluation set consisting of 26 proteins featuring peptide as well as small ligand binding sites. We show that DynaBiS outperforms the other evaluated methods for the identification of protein binding sites for large and highly flexible ligands such as peptides, both with a holo or apo structure used as input.     

Protein-Protein Interactions in a Crowded Environment: An Analysis via Cross-Docking Simulations and Evolutionary Information

Large-scale analyses of protein-protein interactions based on coarse-grain molecular docking simulations and binding site predictions resulting from evolutionary sequence analysis, are possible and realizable on hundreds of proteins with variate structures and interfaces. We demonstrated this on the 168 proteins of the Mintseris Benchmark 2.0. On the one hand, we evaluated the quality of the interaction signal and the contribution of docking information compared to evolutionary information showing that the combination of the two improves partner identification. On the other hand, since protein interactions usually occur in crowded environments with several competing partners, we realized a thorough analysis of the interactions of proteins with true partners but also with non-partners to evaluate whether proteins in the environment, competing with the true partner, affect its identification. We found three populations of proteins: strongly competing, never competing, and interacting with different levels of strength. Populations and levels of strength are numerically characterized and provide a signature for the behavior of a protein in the crowded environment. We showed that partner identification, to some extent, does not depend on the competing partners present in the environment, that certain biochemical classes of proteins are intrinsically easier to analyze than others, and that small proteins are not more promiscuous than large ones. Our approach brings to light that the knowledge of the binding site can be used to reduce the high computational cost of docking simulations with no consequence in the quality of the results, demonstrating the possibility to apply coarse-grain docking to datasets made of thousands of proteins. Comparison with all available large-scale analyses aimed to partner predictions is realized. We release the complete decoys set issued by coarse-grain docking simulations of both true and false interacting partners, and their evolutionary sequence analysis leading to binding site predictions. Download site: http://www.lgm.upmc.fr/CCDMintseris/     

n-Dodecyl β-D-maltoside specifically competes with general anesthetics for anesthetic binding sites

We recently demonstrated that the anionic detergent sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) specifically interacts with the anesthetic binding site in horse spleen apoferritin, a soluble protein which models anesthetic binding sites in receptors. This raises the possibility of other detergents similarly interacting with and occluding such sites from anesthetics, thereby preventing the proper identification of novel anesthetic binding sites. n-Dodecyl β-D-maltoside (DDM) is a non-ionic detergent commonly used during protein-anesthetic studies because of its mild and non-denaturing properties. In this study, we demonstrate that SDS and DDM occupy anesthetic binding sites in the model proteins human serum albumin (HSA) and horse spleen apoferritin and thereby inhibit the binding of the general anesthetics propofol and isoflurane. DDM specifically interacts with HSA (K_d?=?40?μM) with a lower affinity than SDS (K_d?=?2?μM). DDM exerts all these effects while not perturbing the native structures of either model protein. Computational calculations corroborated the experimental results by demonstrating that the binding sites for DDM and both anesthetics on the model proteins overlapped. Collectively, our results indicate that DDM and SDS specifically interact with anesthetic binding sites and may thus prevent the identification of novel anesthetic sites. Special precaution should be taken when undertaking and interpreting results from protein-anesthetic investigations utilizing detergents like SDS and DDM.     

Exploration of human serum albumin binding sites by docking and molecular dynamics flexible ligand–protein interactions

Five‐nanosecond molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were performed on human serum albumin (HSA) to study the conformational features of its primary ligand binding sites (I and II). Additionally, 11 HSA snapshots were extracted every 0.5 ns to explore the binding affinity (K_d) of 94 known HSA binding drugs using a blind docking procedure. MD simulations indicate that there is considerable flexibility for the protein, including the known sites I and II. Movements at HSA sites I and II were evidenced by structural analyses and docking simulations. The latter enabled the study and analysis of the HSA–ligand interactions of warfarin and ketoprofen (ligands binding to sites I and II, respectively) in greater detail. Our results indicate that the free energy values by docking (K_d observed) depend upon the conformations of both HSA and the ligand. The 94 HSA–ligand binding K_d values, obtained by the docking procedure, were subjected to a quantitative structure‐activity relationship (QSAR) study by multiple regression analysis. The best correlation between the observed and QSAR theoretical (K_d predicted) data was displayed at 2.5 ns. This study provides evidence that HSA binding sites I and II interact specifically with a variety of compounds through conformational adjustments of the protein structure in conjunction with ligand conformational adaptation to these sites. These results serve to explain the high ligand‐promiscuity of HSA. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biopolymers 93: 161–170, 2010. This article was originally published online as an accepted preprint. The “Published Online” date corresponds to the preprint version. You can request a copy of the preprint by emailing the Biopolymers editorial office at biopolymers@wiley.com     

Computational identification of proteins for selectivity assays

At the stage of optimization of a chemical series the compounds are normally assayed for binding or inhibition on the target protein as well as on several proteins from a selectivity panel. These proteins are normally identified on the basis of sequence homology to the target protein. Experimental selectivity data are also taken into account if available. Cases when a nonhomologous protein has a significant affinity to the compound series are going to be missed if the selectivity panel is identified by homology. Experimental data is usually either unavailable or limited to a small fraction of proteins that should be considered. We have developed a computational method of identification of selectivity panel proteins. It is based on the evaluation of binding site similarity to the target protein using docking scores of target-selected molecular probes. These probes are obtained by docking a large library of drug-like compounds to the target protein followed by selecting a diverse subset from the best virtual binders. Docking scores of these probes to other proteins measure binding site similarity to the target. Because the method does not require prior knowledge of either affinities or structures of inhibitors for the target, it can be applied to any protein with known 3D structure. Validation of the method includes rediscovery of nonhomologous proteins that bind common ligands: estradiol, tamoxifen, and riboflavin. Given 3D structures, the method can effectively discriminate proteins with similar binding sites from random proteins independent of sequence homology.     

Improving accuracy and efficiency of blind protein-ligand docking by focusing on predicted binding sites

The use of predicted binding sites (binding sites calculated from the protein structure alone) is evaluated here as a tool to focus the docking of small molecule ligands into protein structures, simulating cases where the real binding sites are unknown. The resulting approach consists of a few independent docking runs carried out on small boxes, centered on the predicted binding sites, as opposed to one larger blind docking run that covers the complete protein structure. The focused and blind approaches were compared using a set of 77 known protein-ligand complexes and 19 ligand-free structures. The focused approach is shown to: (1) identify the correct binding site more frequently than blind docking; (2) produce more accurate docking poses for the ligand; (3) require less computational time. Additionally, the results show that very few real binding sites are missed in spite of focusing on only three predicted binding sites per target protein. Overall the results indicate that, by improving the sampling in regions that are likely to correspond to binding sites, the focused docking approach increases accuracy and efficiency of protein ligand docking for those cases where the ligand-binding site is unknown. This is especially relevant in applications such as reverse virtual screening and structure-based functional annotation of proteins.     

The NMR solution structure and function of RPA3313: a putative ribosomal transport protein from Rhodopseudomonas palustris

Protein function elucidation often relies heavily on amino acid sequence analysis and other bioinformatics approaches. The reliance is extended to structure homology modeling for ligand docking and protein–protein interaction mapping. However, sequence analysis of RPA3313 exposes a large, unannotated class of hypothetical proteins mostly from the Rhizobiales order. In the absence of sequence and structure information, further functional elucidation of this class of proteins has been significantly hindered. A high quality NMR structure of RPA3313 reveals that the protein forms a novel split ββαβ fold with a conserved ligand binding pocket between the first β‐strand and the N‐terminus of the α‐helix. Conserved residue analysis and protein–protein interaction prediction analyses reveal multiple protein binding sites and conserved functional residues. Results of a mass spectrometry proteomic analysis strongly point toward interaction with the ribosome and its subunits. The combined structural and proteomic analyses suggest that RPA3313 by itself or in a larger complex may assist in the transportation of substrates to or from the ribosome for further processing. Proteins 2016; 85:93–102. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.