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.     

PIE—Efficient filters and coarse grained potentials for unbound protein–protein docking

Identifying correct binding modes in a large set of models is an important step in protein–protein docking. We identified protein docking filter based on overlap area that significantly reduces the number of candidate structures that require detailed examination. We also developed potentials based on residue contacts and overlap areas using a comprehensive learning set of 640 two‐chain protein complexes with mathematical programming. Our potential showed substantially better recognition capacity compared to other publicly accessible protein docking potentials in discriminating between native and nonnative binding modes on a large test set of 84 complexes independent of our training set. We were able to rank a near‐native model on the top in 43 cases and within top 10 in 51 cases. We also report an atomic potential that ranks a near‐native model on the top in 46 cases and within top 10 in 58 cases. Our filter+potential is well suited for selecting a small set of models to be refined to atomic resolution. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Protein-protein docking with multiple residue conformations and residue substitutions

The protein docking problem has two major aspects: sampling conformations and orientations, and scoring them for fit. To investigate the extent to which the protein docking problem may be attributed to the sampling of ligand side‐chain conformations, multiple conformations of multiple residues were calculated for the uncomplexed (unbound) structures of protein ligands. These ligand conformations were docked into both the complexed (bound) and unbound conformations of the cognate receptors, and their energies were evaluated using an atomistic potential function. The following questions were considered: (1) does the ensemble of precalculated ligand conformations contain a structure similar to the bound form of the ligand? (2) Can the large number of conformations that are calculated be efficiently docked into the receptors? (3) Can near‐native complexes be distinguished from non‐native complexes? Results from seven test systems suggest that the precalculated ensembles do include side‐chain conformations similar to those adopted in the experimental complexes. By assuming additivity among the side chains, the ensemble can be docked in less than 12 h on a desktop computer. These multiconformer dockings produce near‐native complexes and also non‐native complexes. When docked against the bound conformations of the receptors, the near‐native complexes of the unbound ligand were always distinguishable from the non‐native complexes. When docked against the unbound conformations of the receptors, the near‐native dockings could usually, but not always, be distinguished from the non‐native complexes. In every case, docking the unbound ligands with flexible side chains led to better energies and a better distinction between near‐native and non‐native fits. An extension of this algorithm allowed for docking multiple residue substitutions (mutants) in addition to multiple conformations. The rankings of the docked mutant proteins correlated with experimental binding affinities. These results suggest that sampling multiple residue conformations and residue substitutions of the unbound ligand contributes to, but does not fully provide, a solution to the protein docking problem. Conformational sampling allows a classical atomistic scoring function to be used; such a function may contribute to better selectivity between near‐native and non‐native complexes. Allowing for receptor flexibility may further extend these results.     

Predicting protein complex geometries with a neural network

A major challenge of the protein docking problem is to define scoring functions that can distinguish near‐native protein complex geometries from a large number of non‐native geometries (decoys) generated with noncomplexed protein structures (unbound docking). In this study, we have constructed a neural network that employs the information from atom‐pair distance distributions of a large number of decoys to predict protein complex geometries. We found that docking prediction can be significantly improved using two different types of polar hydrogen atoms. To train the neural network, 2000 near‐native decoys of even distance distribution were used for each of the 185 considered protein complexes. The neural network normalizes the information from different protein complexes using an additional protein complex identity input neuron for each complex. The parameters of the neural network were determined such that they mimic a scoring funnel in the neighborhood of the native complex structure. The neural network approach avoids the reference state problem, which occurs in deriving knowledge‐based energy functions for scoring. We show that a distance‐dependent atom pair potential performs much better than a simple atom‐pair contact potential. We have compared the performance of our scoring function with other empirical and knowledge‐based scoring functions such as ZDOCK 3.0, ZRANK, ITScore‐PP, EMPIRE, and RosettaDock. In spite of the simplicity of the method and its functional form, our neural network‐based scoring function achieves a reasonable performance in rigid‐body unbound docking of proteins. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Performance and enhancement of the LZerD protein assembly pipeline in CAPRI 38-46

We report the performance of the protein docking prediction pipeline of our group and the results for Critical Assessment of Prediction of Interactions (CAPRI) rounds 38-46. The pipeline integrates programs developed in our group as well as other existing scoring functions. The core of the pipeline is the LZerD protein-protein docking algorithm. If templates of the target complex are not found in PDB, the first step of our docking prediction pipeline is to run LZerD for a query protein pair. Meanwhile, in the case of human group prediction, we survey the literature to find information that can guide the modeling, such as protein-protein interface information. In addition to any literature information and binding residue prediction, generated docking decoys were selected by a rank aggregation of statistical scoring functions. The top 10 decoys were relaxed by a short molecular dynamics simulation before submission to remove atom clashes and improve side-chain conformations. In these CAPRI rounds, our group, particularly the LZerD server, showed robust performance. On the other hand, there are failed cases where some other groups were successful. To understand weaknesses of our pipeline, we analyzed sources of errors for failed targets. Since we noted that structure refinement is a step that needs improvement, we newly performed a comparative study of several refinement approaches. Finally, we show several examples that illustrate successful and unsuccessful cases by our group.     

A flexible docking approach for prediction of T cell receptor–peptide–MHC complexes

T cell receptors (TCRs) are immune proteins that specifically bind to antigenic molecules, which are often foreign peptides presented by major histocompatibility complex proteins (pMHCs), playing a key role in the cellular immune response. To advance our understanding and modeling of this dynamic immunological event, we assembled a protein–protein docking benchmark consisting of 20 structures of crystallized TCR/pMHC complexes for which unbound structures exist for both TCR and pMHC. We used our benchmark to compare predictive performance using several flexible and rigid backbone TCR/pMHC docking protocols. Our flexible TCR docking algorithm, TCRFlexDock, improved predictive success over the fixed backbone protocol, leading to near‐native predictions for 80% of the TCR/pMHC cases among the top 10 models, and 100% of the cases in the top 30 models. We then applied TCRFlexDock to predict the two distinct docking modes recently described for a single TCR bound to two different antigens, and tested several protein modeling scoring functions for prediction of TCR/pMHC binding affinities. This algorithm and benchmark should enable future efforts to predict, and design of uncharacterized TCR/pMHC complexes.     

Native fold and docking pose discrimination by the same residue‐based scoring function

Structure prediction and quality assessment are crucial steps in modeling native protein conformations. Statistical potentials are widely used in related algorithms, with different parametrizations typically developed for different contexts such as folding protein monomers or docking protein complexes. Here, we describe BACH‐SixthSense, a single residue‐based statistical potential that can be successfully employed in both contexts. BACH‐SixthSense shares the same approach as BACH, a knowledge‐based potential originally developed to score monomeric protein structures. A term that penalizes steric clashes as well as the distinction between polar and apolar sidechain‐sidechain contacts are crucial novel features of BACH‐SixthSense. The performance of BACH‐SixthSense in discriminating correctly the native structure among a competing set of decoys is significantly higher than other state‐of‐the‐art scoring functions, that were specifically trained for a single context, for both monomeric proteins (QMEAN, Rosetta, RF_CB_SRS_OD, benchmarked on CASP targets) and protein dimers (IRAD, Rosetta, PIE*PISA, HADDOCK, FireDock, benchmarked on 14 CAPRI targets). The performance of BACH‐SixthSense in recognizing near‐native docking poses within CAPRI decoy sets is good as well. Proteins 2015; 83:621–630. © 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.     

Sampling and scoring: A marriage made in heaven

Most structure prediction algorithms consist of initial sampling of the conformational space, followed by rescoring and possibly refinement of a number of selected structures. Here we focus on protein docking, and show that while decoupling sampling and scoring facilitates method development, integration of the two steps can lead to substantial improvements in docking results. Since decoupling is usually achieved by generating a decoy set containing both non‐native and near‐native docked structures, which can be then used for scoring function construction, we first review the roles and potential pitfalls of decoys in protein–protein docking, and show that some type of decoys are better than others for method development. We then describe three case studies showing that complete decoupling of scoring from sampling is not the best choice for solving realistic docking problems. Although some of the examples are based on our own experience, the results of the CAPRI docking and scoring experiments also show that performing both sampling and scoring generally yields better results than scoring the structures generated by all predictors. Next we investigate how the selection of training and decoy sets affects the performance of the scoring functions obtained. Finally, we discuss pathways to better alignment of the two steps, and show some algorithms that achieve a certain level of integration. Although we focus on protein–protein docking, our observations most likely also apply to other conformational search problems, including protein structure prediction and the docking of small molecules to proteins.Proteins 2013; 81:1874–1884. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Mimicking the action of folding chaperones by Hamiltonian replica-exchange molecular dynamics simulations: application in the refinement of de novo models

The efficiency of using a variant of Hamiltonian replica‐exchange molecular dynamics (Chaperone H‐replica‐exchange molecular dynamics [CH‐REMD]) for the refinement of protein structural models generated de novo is investigated. In CH‐REMD, the interaction between the protein and its environment, specifically, the electrostatic interaction between the protein and the solvating water, is varied leading to cycles of partial unfolding and refolding mimicking some aspects of folding chaperones. In 10 of the 15 cases examined, the CH‐REMD approach sampled structures in which the root‐mean‐square deviation (RMSD) of secondary structure elements (SSE‐RMSD) with respect to the experimental structure was more than 1.0 Å lower than the initial de novo model. In 14 of the 15 cases, the improvement was more than 0.5 Å. The ability of three different statistical potentials to identify near‐native conformations was also examined. Little correlation between the SSE‐RMSD of the sampled structures with respect to the experimental structure and any of the scoring functions tested was found. The most effective scoring function tested was the DFIRE potential. Using the DFIRE potential, the SSE‐RMSD of the best scoring structures was on average 0.3 Å lower than the initial model. Overall the work demonstrates that targeted enhanced‐sampling techniques such as CH‐REMD can lead to the systematic refinement of protein structural models generated de novo but that improved potentials for the identification of near‐native structures are still needed. Proteins 2012; © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A systematic analysis of scoring functions in rigid‐body protein docking: The delicate balance between the predictive rate improvement and the risk of overtraining

Protein‐protein interactions play fundamental roles in biological processes including signaling, metabolism, and trafficking. While the structure of a protein complex reveals crucial details about the interaction, it is often difficult to acquire this information experimentally. As the number of interactions discovered increases faster than they can be characterized, protein‐protein docking calculations may be able to reduce this disparity by providing models of the interacting proteins. Rigid‐body docking is a widely used docking approach, and is often capable of generating a pool of models within which a near‐native structure can be found. These models need to be scored in order to select the acceptable ones from the set of poses. Recently, more than 100 scoring functions from the CCharPPI server were evaluated for this task using decoy structures generated with SwarmDock. Here, we extend this analysis to identify the predictive success rates of the scoring functions on decoys from three rigid‐body docking programs, ZDOCK, FTDock, and SDOCK, allowing us to assess the transferability of the functions. We also apply set‐theoretic measure to test whether the scoring functions are capable of identifying near‐native poses within different subsets of the benchmark. This information can provide guides for the use of the most efficient scoring function for each docking method, as well as instruct future scoring functions development efforts. Proteins 2017; 85:1287–1297. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

CyClus: A fast,comprehensive cylindrical interface approximation clustering/reranking method for rigid‐body protein–protein docking decoys

We propose a fast clustering and reranking method, CyClus, for protein–protein docking decoys. This method enables comprehensive clustering of whole decoys generated by rigid‐body docking using cylindrical approximation of the protein–proteininterface and hierarchical clustering procedures. We demonstrate the clustering and reranking of 54,000 decoy structures generated by ZDOCK for each complex within a few minutes. After parameter tuning for the test set in ZDOCK benchmark 2.0 with the ZDOCK and ZRANK scoring functions, blind tests for the incremental data in ZDOCK benchmark 3.0 and 4.0 were conducted. CyClus successfully generated smaller subsets of decoys containing near‐native decoys. For example, the number of decoys required to create subsets containing near‐native decoys with 80% probability was reduced from 22% to 50% of the number required in the original ZDOCK. Although specific ZDOCK and ZRANK results were demonstrated, the CyClus algorithm was designed to be more general and can be applied to a wide range of decoys and scoring functions by adjusting just two parameters, p and T. CyClus results were also compared to those from ClusPro. Proteins 2013; © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

A combinatorial scoring function for protein–RNA docking

Protein–RNA docking is still an open question. One of the main challenges is to develop an effective scoring function that can discriminate near‐native structures from the incorrect ones. To solve the problem, we have constructed a knowledge‐based residue‐nucleotide pairwise potential with secondary structure information considered for nonribosomal protein–RNA docking. Here we developed a weighted combined scoring function RpveScore that consists of the pairwise potential and six physics‐based energy terms. The weights were optimized using the multiple linear regression method by fitting the scoring function to L_rmsd for the bound docking decoys from Benchmark II. The scoring functions were tested on 35 unbound docking cases. The results show that the scoring function RpveScore including all terms performs best. Also RpveScore was compared with the statistical mechanics‐based method derived potential ITScore‐PR, and the united atom‐based statistical potentials QUASI‐RNP and DARS‐RNP. The success rate of RpveScore is 71.6% for the top 1000 structures and the number of cases where a near‐native structure is ranked in top 30 is 25 out of 35 cases. For 32 systems (91.4%), RpveScore can find the binding mode in top 5 that has no lower than 50% native interface residues on protein and nucleotides on RNA. Additionally, it was found that the long‐range electrostatic attractive energy plays an important role in distinguishing near‐native structures from the incorrect ones. This work can be helpful for the development of protein–RNA docking methods and for the understanding of protein–RNA interactions. RpveScore program is available to the public at http://life.bjut.edu.cn/kxyj/kycg/2017116/14845362285362368_1.html Proteins 2017; 85:741–752. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A conservation and biophysics guided stochastic approach to refining docked multimeric proteins

Background

We introduce a protein docking refinement method that accepts complexes consisting of any number of monomeric units. The method uses a scoring function based on a tight coupling between evolutionary conservation, geometry and physico-chemical interactions. Understanding the role of protein complexes in the basic biology of organisms heavily relies on the detection of protein complexes and their structures. Different computational docking methods are developed for this purpose, however, these methods are often not accurate and their results need to be further refined to improve the geometry and the energy of the resulting complexes. Also, despite the fact that complexes in nature often have more than two monomers, most docking methods focus on dimers since the computational complexity increases exponentially due to the addition of monomeric units.

Results

Our results show that the refinement scheme can efficiently handle complexes with more than two monomers by biasing the results towards complexes with native interactions, filtering out false positive results. Our refined complexes have better IRMSDs with respect to the known complexes and lower energies than those initial docked structures.

Conclusions

Evolutionary conservation information allows us to bias our results towards possible functional interfaces, and the probabilistic selection scheme helps us to escape local energy minima. We aim to incorporate our refinement method in a larger framework which also enables docking of multimeric complexes given only monomeric structures.

     

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.     

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.