Using collections of structural models to predict changes of binding affinity caused by mutations in protein–protein interactions

Protein–protein interactions (PPIs) in all the molecular aspects that take place both inside and outside cells. However, determining experimentally the structure and affinity of PPIs is expensive and time consuming. Therefore, the development of computational tools, as a complement to experimental methods, is fundamental. Here, we present a computational suite: MODPIN, to model and predict the changes of binding affinity of PPIs. In this approach we use homology modeling to derive the structures of PPIs and score them using state‐of‐the‐art scoring functions. We explore the conformational space of PPIs by generating not a single structural model but a collection of structural models with different conformations based on several templates. We apply the approach to predict the changes in free energy upon mutations and splicing variants of large datasets of PPIs to statistically quantify the quality and accuracy of the predictions. As an example, we use MODPIN to study the effect of mutations in the interaction between colicin endonuclease 9 and colicin endonuclease 2 immune protein from Escherichia coli. Finally, we have compared our results with other state‐of‐art methods.     

Inferring the microscopic surface energy of protein–protein interfaces from mutation data

Mutations at protein–protein recognition sites alter binding strength by altering the chemical nature of the interacting surfaces. We present a simple surface energy model, parameterized with empirical values, yielding mean energies of ?48 cal mol^?1 Å^?2 for interactions between hydrophobic surfaces, ?51 to ?80 cal mol^?1 Å^?2 for surfaces of complementary charge, and 66–83 cal mol^?1 Å^?2 for electrostatically repelling surfaces, relative to the aqueous phase. This places the mean energy of hydrophobic surface burial at ?24 cal mol^?1 Å^?2. Despite neglecting configurational entropy and intramolecular changes, the model correlates with empirical binding free energies of a functionally diverse set of rigid‐body interactions (r = 0.66). When used to rerank docking poses, it can place near‐native solutions in the top 10 for 37% of the complexes evaluated, and 82% in the top 100. The method shows that hydrophobic burial is the driving force for protein association, accounting for 50–95% of the cohesive energy. The model is available open‐source from http://life.bsc.es/pid/web/surface_energy/ and via the CCharpPPI web server http://life.bsc.es/pid/ccharppi/ . Proteins 2015; 83:640–650. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking

Proteins are essential elements of biological systems, and their function typically relies on their ability to successfully bind to specific partners. Recently, an emphasis of study into protein interactions has been on hot spots, or residues in the binding interface that make a significant contribution to the binding energetics. In this study, we investigate how conservation of hot spots can be used to guide docking prediction. We show that the use of evolutionary data combined with hot spot prediction highlights near‐native structures across a range of benchmark examples. Our approach explores various strategies for using hot spots and evolutionary data to score protein complexes, using both absolute and chemical definitions of conservation along with refinements to these strategies that look at windowed conservation and filtering to ensure a minimum number of hot spots in each binding partner. Finally, structure‐based models of orthologs were generated for comparison with sequence‐based scoring. Using two data sets of 22 and 85 examples, a high rate of top 10 and top 1 predictions are observed, with up to 82% of examples returning a top 10 hit and 35% returning top 1 hit depending on the data set and strategy applied; upon inclusion of the native structure among the decoys, up to 55% of examples yielded a top 1 hit. The 20 common examples between data sets show that more carefully curated interolog data yields better predictions, particularly in achieving top 1 hits. Proteins 2015; 83:1940–1946. © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Interplay between binding affinity and kinetics in protein–protein interactions

To clarify the interplay between the binding affinity and kinetics of protein–protein interactions, and the possible role of intrinsically disordered proteins in such interactions, molecular simulations were carried out on 20 protein complexes. With bias potential and reweighting techniques, the free energy profiles were obtained under physiological affinities, which showed that the bound‐state valley is deep with a barrier height of 12 ? 33 RT. From the dependence of the affinity on interface interactions, the entropic contribution to the binding affinity is approximated to be proportional to the interface area. The extracted dissociation rates based on the Arrhenius law correlate reasonably well with the experimental values (Pearson correlation coefficient R = 0.79). For each protein complex, a linear free energy relationship between binding affinity and the dissociation rate was confirmed, but the distribution of the slopes for intrinsically disordered proteins showed no essential difference with that observed for ordered proteins. A comparison with protein folding was also performed. Proteins 2016; 84:920–933. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Optimization of protein–protein docking for predicting Fc–protein interactions

The antibody crystallizable fragment (Fc) is recognized by effector proteins as part of the immune system. Pathogens produce proteins that bind Fc in order to subvert or evade the immune response. The structural characterization of the determinants of Fc–protein association is essential to improve our understanding of the immune system at the molecular level and to develop new therapeutic agents. Furthermore, Fc‐binding peptides and proteins are frequently used to purify therapeutic antibodies. Although several structures of Fc–protein complexes are available, numerous others have not yet been determined. Protein–protein docking could be used to investigate Fc–protein complexes; however, improved approaches are necessary to efficiently model such cases. In this study, a docking‐based structural bioinformatics approach is developed for predicting the structures of Fc–protein complexes. Based on the available set of X‐ray structures of Fc–protein complexes, three regions of the Fc, loosely corresponding to three turns within the structure, were defined as containing the essential features for protein recognition and used as restraints to filter the initial docking search. Rescoring the filtered poses with an optimal scoring strategy provided a success rate of approximately 80% of the test cases examined within the top ranked 20 poses, compared to approximately 20% by the initial unrestrained docking. The developed docking protocol provides a significant improvement over the initial unrestrained docking and will be valuable for predicting the structures of currently undetermined Fc–protein complexes, as well as in the design of peptides and proteins that target Fc.     

The dataset for protein–RNA binding affinity

We have developed a non‐redundant protein–RNA binding benchmark dataset derived from the available protein–RNA structures in the Protein Database Bank. It consists of 73 complexes with measured binding affinity. The experimental conditions (pH and temperature) for binding affinity measurements are also listed in our dataset. This binding affinity dataset can be used to compare and develop protein–RNA scoring functions. The predicted binding free energy of the 73 complexes from three available scoring functions for protein–RNA docking has a low correlation with the binding Gibbs free energy calculated from K_d. © 2013 The Protein Society     

Predicting permanent and transient protein–protein interfaces

Protein–protein interactions (PPIs) are involved in diverse functions in a cell. To optimize functional roles of interactions, proteins interact with a spectrum of binding affinities. Interactions are conventionally classified into permanent and transient, where the former denotes tight binding between proteins that result in strong complexes, whereas the latter compose of relatively weak interactions that can dissociate after binding to regulate functional activity at specific time point. Knowing the type of interactions has significant implications for understanding the nature and function of PPIs. In this study, we constructed amino acid substitution models that capture mutation patterns at permanent and transient type of protein interfaces, which were found to be different with statistical significance. Using the substitution models, we developed a novel computational method that predicts permanent and transient protein binding interfaces (PBIs) in protein surfaces. Without knowledge of the interacting partner, the method uses a single query protein structure and a multiple sequence alignment of the sequence family. Using a large dataset of permanent and transient proteins, we show that our method, BindML+, performs very well in protein interface classification. A very high area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.957 was observed when predicted protein binding sites were classified. Remarkably, near prefect accuracy was achieved with an AUC of 0.991 when actual binding sites were classified. The developed method will be also useful for protein design of permanent and transient PBIs. © Proteins 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Computational design of second‐site suppressor mutations at protein–protein interfaces

The importance of a protein–protein interaction to a signaling pathway can be established by showing that amino acid mutations that weaken the interaction disrupt signaling, and that additional mutations that rescue the interaction recover signaling. Identifying rescue mutations, often referred to as second‐site suppressor mutations, controls against scenarios in which the initial deleterious mutation inactivates the protein or disrupts alternative protein–protein interactions. Here, we test a structure‐based protocol for identifying second‐site suppressor mutations that is based on a strategy previously described by Kortemme and Baker. The molecular modeling software Rosetta is used to scan an interface for point mutations that are predicted to weaken binding but can be rescued by mutations on the partner protein. The protocol typically identifies three types of specificity switches: knob‐in‐to‐hole redesigns, switching hydrophobic interactions to hydrogen bond interactions, and replacing polar interactions with nonpolar interactions. Computational predictions were tested with two separate protein complexes; the G‐protein Gα_i1 bound to the RGS14 GoLoco motif, and UbcH7 bound to the ubiquitin ligase E6AP. Eight designs were experimentally tested. Swapping a buried hydrophobic residue with a polar residue dramatically weakened binding affinities. In none of these cases were we able to identify compensating mutations that returned binding to wild‐type affinity, highlighting the challenges inherent in designing buried hydrogen bond networks. The strongest specificity switches were a knob‐in‐to‐hole design (20‐fold) and the replacement of a charge–charge interaction with nonpolar interactions (55‐fold). In two cases, specificity was further tuned by including mutations distant from the initial design. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Structural motifs in protein cores and at protein–protein interfaces are different

Structures of proteins and protein–protein complexes are determined by the same physical principles and thus share a number of similarities. At the same time, there could be differences because in order to function, proteins interact with other molecules, undergo conformations changes, and so forth, which might impose different restraints on the tertiary versus quaternary structures. This study focuses on structural properties of protein–protein interfaces in comparison with the protein core, based on the wealth of currently available structural data and new structure‐based approaches. The results showed that physicochemical characteristics, such as amino acid composition, residue–residue contact preferences, and hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity distributions, are similar in protein core and protein–protein interfaces. On the other hand, characteristics that reflect the evolutionary pressure, such as structural composition and packing, are largely different. The results provide important insight into fundamental properties of protein structure and function. At the same time, the results contribute to better understanding of the ways to dock proteins. Recent progress in predicting structures of individual proteins follows the advancement of deep learning techniques and new approaches to residue coevolution data. Protein core could potentially provide large amounts of data for application of the deep learning to docking. However, our results showed that the core motifs are significantly different from those at protein–protein interfaces, and thus may not be directly useful for docking. At the same time, such difference may help to overcome a major obstacle in application of the coevolutionary data to docking—discrimination of the intramolecular information not directly relevant to docking.     

InterPred: A pipeline to identify and model protein–protein interactions

Protein–protein interactions (PPI) are crucial for protein function. There exist many techniques to identify PPIs experimentally, but to determine the interactions in molecular detail is still difficult and very time‐consuming. The fact that the number of PPIs is vastly larger than the number of individual proteins makes it practically impossible to characterize all interactions experimentally. Computational approaches that can bridge this gap and predict PPIs and model the interactions in molecular detail are greatly needed. Here we present InterPred, a fully automated pipeline that predicts and model PPIs from sequence using structural modeling combined with massive structural comparisons and molecular docking. A key component of the method is the use of a novel random forest classifier that integrate several structural features to distinguish correct from incorrect protein–protein interaction models. We show that InterPred represents a major improvement in protein–protein interaction detection with a performance comparable or better than experimental high‐throughput techniques. We also show that our full‐atom protein–protein complex modeling pipeline performs better than state of the art protein docking methods on a standard benchmark set. In addition, InterPred was also one of the top predictors in the latest CAPRI37 experiment. InterPred source code can be downloaded from http://wallnerlab.org/InterPred Proteins 2017; 85:1159–1170. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Non‐interacting surface solvation and dynamics in protein–protein interactions

Protein–protein interactions control a plethora of cellular processes, including cell proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis, and signal transduction. Understanding how and why proteins interact will inevitably lead to novel structure‐based drug design methods, as well as design of de novo binders with preferred interaction properties. At a structural and molecular level, interface and rim regions are not enough to fully account for the energetics of protein–protein binding, even for simple lock‐and‐key rigid binders. As we have recently shown, properties of the global surface might also play a role in protein–protein interactions. Here, we report on molecular dynamics simulations performed to understand solvent effects on protein–protein surfaces. We compare properties of the interface, rim, and non‐interacting surface regions for five different complexes and their free components. Interface and rim residues become, as expected, less mobile upon complexation. However, non‐interacting surface appears more flexible in the complex. Fluctuations of polar residues are always lower compared with charged ones, independent of the protein state. Further, stable water molecules are often observed around polar residues, in contrast to charged ones. Our analysis reveals that (a) upon complexation, the non‐interacting surface can have a direct entropic compensation for the lower interface and rim entropy and (b) the mobility of the first hydration layer, which is linked to the stability of the protein–protein complex, is influenced by the local chemical properties of the surface. These findings corroborate previous hypotheses on the role of the hydration layer in shielding protein–protein complexes from unintended protein–protein interactions. Proteins 2015; 83:445–458. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Quantitative prediction of protein–protein binding affinity with a potential of mean force considering volume correction

Quantitative prediction of protein–protein binding affinity is essential for understanding protein–protein interactions. In this article, an atomic level potential of mean force (PMF) considering volume correction is presented for the prediction of protein–protein binding affinity. The potential is obtained by statistically analyzing X‐ray structures of protein–protein complexes in the Protein Data Bank. This approach circumvents the complicated steps of the volume correction process and is very easy to implement in practice. It can obtain more reasonable pair potential compared with traditional PMF and shows a classic picture of nonbonded atom pair interaction as Lennard‐Jones potential. To evaluate the prediction ability for protein–protein binding affinity, six test sets are examined. Sets 1–5 were used as test set in five published studies, respectively, and set 6 was the union set of sets 1–5, with a total of 86 protein–protein complexes. The correlation coefficient (R) and standard deviation (SD) of fitting predicted affinity to experimental data were calculated to compare the performance of ours with that in literature. Our predictions on sets 1–5 were as good as the best prediction reported in the published studies, and for union set 6, R = 0.76, SD = 2.24 kcal/mol. Furthermore, we found that the volume correction can significantly improve the prediction ability. This approach can also promote the research on docking and protein structure prediction.     

A discriminative approach for identifying domain–domain interactions from protein–protein interactions

Protein domains are functional and structural units of proteins. Therefore, identification of domain–domain interactions (DDIs) can provide insight into the biological functions of proteins. In this article, we propose a novel discriminative approach for predicting DDIs based on both protein–protein interactions (PPIs) and the derived information of non‐PPIs. We make a threefold contribution to the work in this area. First, we take into account non‐PPIs explicitly and treat the domain combinations that can discriminate PPIs from non‐PPIs as putative DDIs. Second, DDI identification is formalized as a feature selection problem, in which it tries to find out a minimum set of informative features (i.e., putative DDIs) that discriminate PPIs from non‐PPIs, which is plausible in biology and is able to predict DDIs in a systematic and accurate manner. Third, multidomain combinations including two‐domain combinations are taken into account in the proposed method, where multidomain cooperations may help proteins to interact with each other. Numerical results on several DDI prediction benchmark data sets show that the proposed discriminative method performs comparably well with other top algorithms with respect to overall performance, and outperforms other methods in terms of precision. The PPI data sets used for prediction of DDIs and prediction results can be found at http://csb.shu.edu.cn/dipd . Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Layered water in crystal interfaces as source for bone viscoelasticity: arguments from a multiscale approach

Extracellular bone material can be characterised as a nanocomposite where, in a liquid environment, nanometre-sized hydroxyapatite crystals precipitate within as well as between long fibre-like collagen fibrils (with diameters in the 100 nm range), as evidenced from neutron diffraction and transmission electron microscopy. Accordingly, these crystals are referred to as ‘interfibrillar mineral’ and ‘extrafibrillar mineral’, respectively. From a topological viewpoint, it is probable that the mineralisations start on the surfaces of the collagen fibrils (‘mineral-encrusted fibrils’), from where the crystals grow both into the fibril and into the extrafibrillar space. Since the mineral concentration depends on the pore spaces within the fibrils and between the fibrils (there is more space between them), the majority of the crystals (but clearly not all of them) typically lie in the extrafibrillar space. There, larger crystal agglomerations or clusters, spanning tens to hundreds of nanometers, develop in the course of mineralisation, and the micromechanics community has identified the pivotal role, which this extrafibrillar mineral plays for tissue elasticity. In such extrafibrillar crystal agglomerates, single crystals are stuck together, their surfaces being covered with very thin water layers. Recently, the latter have caught our interest regarding strength properties (Fritsch et al. 2009 J Theor Biol. 260(2): 230–252) – we have identified these water layers as weak interfaces in the extrafibrillar mineral of bone. Rate-independent gliding effects of crystals along the aforementioned interfaces, once an elastic threshold is surpassed, can be related to overall elastoplastic material behaviour of the hierarchical material ‘bone’. Extending this idea, the present paper is devoted to viscous gliding along these interfaces, expressing itself, at the macroscale, in the well-known experimentally evidenced phenomenon of bone viscoelasticity. In this context, a multiscale homogenisation scheme is extended to viscoelasticity, mineral-cluster-specific creep parameters are identified from three-point bending tests on hydrated bone samples, and the model is validated by statistically and physically independent experiments on partially dried samples. We expect this model to be relevant when it comes to prediction of time-dependent phenomena, e.g. in the context of bone remodelling.     

Exploring additivity effects of double mutations on the binding affinity of protein‐protein complexes

Additivity in binding affinity of protein‐protein complexes refers to the change in free energy of binding (ΔΔG_bind) for double (or multiple) mutations which is approximately equal to the sum of their corresponding single mutation ΔΔG_bind values. In this study, we have explored the additivity effect of double mutants, which shows a linear relationship between the binding affinity of double and sum of single mutants with a correlation of 0.90. However, the comparison of ΔΔG_bind values showed a mean absolute deviation of 0.86 kcal/mol, and 25.6% of the double mutants show a deviation of more than 1 kcal/mol, which are identified as non‐additive. The additivity effects have been analyzed based on the influence of structural features such as accessible surface area, long range order, binding propensity change, surrounding hydrophobicity, flexibility, atomic contacts between the mutations and distance between the 2 mutations. We found that non‐additive mutations tend to be closer to each other and have more contacts. We have also used machine learning methods to discriminate additive and non‐additive mutations using structure‐based features, which showed the accuracies in the range of 0.77–0.92 for protein‐protein complexes belonging to different functions. Further, we have compared the additivity effects of protein stability along with binding affinity and explored the similarities and differences between them. The results obtained in this study provide insights into the effects of various structural features on binding affinity of double mutants, and will aid the development of accurate methods to predict the binding affinity of double mutants.     

Amino acid substitutions at protein–protein interfaces that modulate the oligomeric state

Despite similarities in their sequence and structure, there are a number of homologous proteins that adopt various oligomeric states. Comparisons of these homologous protein pairs, in terms of residue substitutions at the protein–protein interfaces, have provided fundamental characteristics that describe how proteins interact with each other. We have prepared a dataset composed of pairs of related proteins with different homo‐oligomeric states. Using the protein complexes, the interface residues were identified, and using structural alignments, the shadow‐interface residues have been defined as the surface residues that align with the interface residues. Subsequently, we investigated residue substitutions between the interfaces and the shadow interfaces. Based on the degree of the contributions to the interactions, the aligned sites of the interfaces and shadow interfaces were divided into primary and secondary sites; the primary sites are the focus of this work. The primary sites were further classified into two groups (i.e. exposed and buried) based on the degree to which the residue is buried within the shadow interfaces. Using these classifications, two simple mechanisms that mediate the oligomeric states were identified. In the primary‐exposed sites, the residues on the shadow interfaces are replaced by more hydrophobic or aromatic residues, which are physicochemically favored at protein–protein interfaces. In the primary‐buried sites, the residues on the shadow interfaces are replaced by larger residues that protrude into other proteins. These simple rules are satisfied in 23 out of 25 Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) families with a different‐oligomeric‐state pair, and thus represent a basic strategy for modulating protein associations and dissociations. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

pH‐selective mutagenesis of protein–protein interfaces: In silico design of therapeutic antibodies with prolonged half‐life

Understanding the effects of mutation on pH‐dependent protein binding affinity is important in protein design, especially in the area of protein therapeutics. We propose a novel method for fast in silico mutagenesis of protein–protein complexes to calculate the effect of mutation as a function of pH. The free energy differences between the wild type and mutants are evaluated from a molecular mechanics model, combined with calculations of the equilibria of proton binding. The predicted pH‐dependent energy profiles demonstrate excellent agreement with experimentally measured pH‐dependency of the effect of mutations on the dissociation constants for the complex of turkey ovomucoid third domain (OMTKY3) and proteinase B. The virtual scanning mutagenesis identifies all hotspots responsible for pH‐dependent binding of immunoglobulin G (IgG) to neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) and the results support the current understanding of the salvage mechanism of the antibody by FcRn based on pH‐selective binding. The method can be used to select mutations that change the pH‐dependent binding profiles of proteins and guide the time consuming and expensive protein engineering experiments. As an application of this method, we propose a computational strategy to search for mutations that can alter the pH‐dependent binding behavior of IgG to FcRn with the aim of improving the half‐life of therapeutic antibodies in the target organism. © Proteins 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.