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.     

Recent developments of sequence-based prediction of protein–protein interactions

The identification of protein–protein interactions (PPIs) can lead to a better understanding of cellular functions and biological processes of proteins and contribute to the design of drugs to target disease-causing PPIs. In addition, targeting host–pathogen PPIs is useful for elucidating infection mechanisms. Although several experimental methods have been used to identify PPIs, these methods can yet to draw complete PPI networks. Hence, computational techniques are increasingly required for the prediction of potential PPIs, which have never been seen experimentally. Recent high-performance sequence-based methods have contributed to the construction of PPI networks and the elucidation of pathogenetic mechanisms in specific diseases. However, the usefulness of these methods depends on the quality and quantity of training data of PPIs. In this brief review, we introduce currently available PPI databases and recent sequence-based methods for predicting PPIs. Also, we discuss key issues in this field and present future perspectives of the sequence-based PPI predictions.     

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.     

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.     

A multiscale approach to predicting affinity changes in protein–protein interfaces

Substitution mutations in protein–protein interfaces can have a substantial effect on binding, which has consequences in basic and applied biomedical research. Experimental expression, purification, and affinity determination of protein complexes is an expensive and time‐consuming means of evaluating the effect of mutations, making a fast and accurate in silico method highly desirable. When the structure of the wild‐type complex is known, it is possible to economically evaluate the effect of point mutations with knowledge based potentials, which do not model backbone flexibility, but these have been validated only for single mutants. Substitution mutations tend to induce local conformational rearrangements only. Accordingly, ZEMu (Zone Equilibration of Mutants) flexibilizes only a small region around the site of mutation, then computes its dynamics under a physics‐based force field. We validate with 1254 experimental mutants (with 1–15 simultaneous substitutions) in a wide variety of different protein environments (65 protein complexes), and obtain a significant improvement in the accuracy of predicted ΔΔG. Proteins 2014; 82:2681–2690. © 2014 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.     

Cold spots are universal in protein–protein interactions

Proteins interact with each other through binding interfaces that differ greatly in size and physico‐chemical properties. Within the binding interface, a few residues called hot spots contribute the majority of the binding free energy and are hence irreplaceable. In contrast, cold spots are occupied by suboptimal amino acids, providing possibility for affinity enhancement through mutations. In this study, we identify cold spots due to cavities and unfavorable charge interactions in multiple protein–protein interactions (PPIs). For our cold spot analysis, we first use a small affinity database of PPIs with known structures and affinities and then expand our search to nearly 4000 homo‐ and heterodimers in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). We observe that cold spots due to cavities are present in nearly all PPIs unrelated to their binding affinity, while unfavorable charge interactions are relatively rare. We also find that most cold spots are located in the periphery of the binding interface, with high‐affinity complexes showing fewer centrally located colds spots than low‐affinity complexes. A larger number of cold spots is also found in non‐cognate interactions compared to their cognate counterparts. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that cold spots are more frequent in homo‐dimeric complexes compared to hetero‐complexes, likely due to symmetry constraints imposed on sequences of homodimers. Finally, we find that glycines, glutamates, and arginines are the most frequent amino acids appearing at cold spot positions. Our analysis emphasizes the importance of cold spot positions to protein evolution and facilitates protein engineering studies directed at enhancing binding affinity and specificity in a wide range of applications.     

Refining near‐native protein–protein docking decoys by local resampling and energy minimization

How to refine a near‐native structure to make it closer to its native conformation is an unsolved problem in protein‐structure and protein–protein complex‐structure prediction. In this article, we first test several scoring functions for selecting locally resampled near‐native protein–protein docking conformations and then propose a computationally efficient protocol for structure refinement via local resampling and energy minimization. The proposed method employs a statistical energy function based on a Distance‐scaled Ideal‐gas REference state (DFIRE) as an initial filter and an empirical energy function EMPIRE (EMpirical Protein‐InteRaction Energy) for optimization and re‐ranking. Significant improvement of final top‐1 ranked structures over initial near‐native structures is observed in the ZDOCK 2.3 decoy set for Benchmark 1.0 (74% whose global rmsd reduced by 0.5 Å or more and only 7% increased by 0.5 Å or more). Less significant improvement is observed for Benchmark 2.0 (38% versus 33%). Possible reasons are discussed. Proteins 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, 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.     

Predicting structural effects in HIV-1 protease mutant complexes with flexible ligand docking and protein side-chain optimization

We present a computational approach for predicting structures of ligand-protein complexes and analyzing binding energy landscapes that combines Monte Carlo simulated annealing technique to determine the ligand bound conformation with the dead-end elimination algorithm for side-chain optimization of the protein active site residues. Flexible ligand docking and optimization of mobile protein side-chains have been performed to predict structural effects in the V32I/I47V/V82I HIV-1 protease mutant bound with the SB203386 ligand and in the V82A HIV-1 protease mutant bound with the A77003 ligand. The computational structure predictions are consistent with the crystal structures of these ligand-protein complexes. The emerging relationships between ligand docking and side-chain optimization of the active site residues are rationalized based on the analysis of the ligand-protein binding energy landscape. Proteins 33:295–310, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Multivalent protein–protein interactions are pivotal regulators of eukaryotic Hsp70 complexes

Heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) is a molecular chaperone and central regulator of protein homeostasis (proteostasis). Paramount to this role is Hsp70’s binding to client proteins and co-chaperones to produce distinct complexes, such that understanding the protein–protein interactions (PPIs) of Hsp70 is foundational to describing its function and dysfunction in disease. Mounting evidence suggests that these PPIs include both “canonical” interactions, which are universally conserved, and “non-canonical” (or “secondary”) contacts that seem to have emerged in eukaryotes. These two categories of interactions involve discrete binding surfaces, such that some clients and co-chaperones engage Hsp70 with at least two points of contact. While the contributions of canonical interactions to chaperone function are becoming increasingly clear, it can be challenging to deconvolute the roles of secondary interactions. Here, we review what is known about non-canonical contacts and highlight examples where their contributions have been parsed, giving rise to a model in which Hsp70’s secondary contacts are not simply sites of additional avidity but are necessary and sufficient to impart unique functions. From this perspective, we propose that further exploration of non-canonical contacts will generate important insights into the evolution of Hsp70 systems and inspire new approaches for developing small molecules that tune Hsp70-mediated proteostasis.     

Match_Motif: A rapid computational tool to assist in protein–protein interaction design

In order to generate protein assemblies with a desired function, the rational design of protein–protein binding interfaces is of significant interest. Approaches based on random mutagenesis or directed evolution may involve complex experimental selection procedures. Also, molecular modeling approaches to design entirely new proteins and interactions with partner molecules can involve large computational efforts and screening steps. In order to simplify at least the initial effort for designing a putative binding interface between two proteins the Match_Motif approach has been developed. It employs the large collection of known protein–protein complex structures to suggest interface modifications that may lead to improved binding for a desired input interaction geometry. The approach extracts interaction motifs based on the backbone structure of short (four residues) segments and the relative arrangement with respect to short segments on the partner protein. The interaction geometry is used to search through a database of such motifs in known stable bound complexes. All matches are rapidly identified (within a few seconds) and collected and can be used to guide changes in the interface that may lead to improved binding. In the output, an alternative interface structure is also proposed based on the frequency of occurrence of side chains at a given interface position in all matches and based on sterical considerations. Applications of the procedure to known complex structures and alternative arrangements are presented and discussed. The program, data files, and example applications can be downloaded from https://www.groups.ph.tum.de/t38/downloads/.     

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.     

CeLINC,a fluorescence-based protein–protein interaction assay in Caenorhabditis elegans

Interactions among proteins are fundamental for life and determining whether two particular proteins physically interact can be essential for fully understanding a protein’s function. We present Caenorhabditis elegans light-induced coclustering (CeLINC), an optical binary protein–protein interaction assay to determine whether two proteins interact in vivo. Based on CRY2/CIB1 light-dependent oligomerization, CeLINC can rapidly and unambiguously identify protein–protein interactions between pairs of fluorescently tagged proteins. A fluorescently tagged bait protein is captured using a nanobody directed against the fluorescent protein (GFP or mCherry) and brought into artificial clusters within the cell. Colocalization of a fluorescently tagged prey protein in the cluster indicates a protein interaction. We tested the system with an array of positive and negative reference protein pairs. Assay performance was extremely robust with no false positives detected in the negative reference pairs. We then used the system to test for interactions among apical and basolateral polarity regulators. We confirmed interactions seen between PAR-6, PKC-3, and PAR-3, but observed no physical interactions among the basolateral Scribble module proteins LET-413, DLG-1, and LGL-1. We have generated a plasmid toolkit that allows use of custom promoters or CRY2 variants to promote flexibility of the system. The CeLINC assay is a powerful and rapid technique that can be widely applied in C. elegans due to the universal plasmids that can be used with existing fluorescently tagged strains without need for additional cloning or genetic modification of the genome.     

Solvated protein–protein docking using Kyte‐Doolittle‐based water preferences

HADDOCK is one of the few docking programs that can explicitly account for water molecules in the docking process. Its solvated docking protocol starts from hydrated molecules and a fraction of the resulting interfacial waters is subsequently removed in a biased Monte Carlo procedure based on water‐mediated contact probabilities. The latter were derived from an analysis of water contact frequencies from high‐resolution crystal structures. Here, we introduce a simple water‐mediated amino acid–amino acid contact probability scale derived from the Kyte‐Doolittle hydrophobicity scale and assess its performance on the largest high‐resolution dataset developed to date for solvated docking. Both scales yield high‐quality docking results. The novel and simple hydrophobicity scale, which should reflect better the physicochemical principles underlying contact propensities, leads to a performance improvement of around 10% in ranking, cluster quality and water recovery at the interface compared with the statistics‐based original solvated docking protocol. Proteins 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Scoring optimisation of unbound protein-protein docking including protein binding site predictions

The prediction of the structure of the protein-protein complex is of great importance to better understand molecular recognition processes. During systematic protein-protein docking, the surface of a protein molecule is scanned for putative binding sites of a partner protein. The possibility to include external data based on either experiments or bioinformatic predictions on putative binding sites during docking has been systematically explored. The external data were included during docking with a coarse-grained protein model and on the basis of force field weights to bias the docking search towards a predicted or known binding region. The approach was tested on a large set of protein partners in unbound conformations. The significant improvement of the docking performance was found if reliable data on the native binding sites were available. This was possible even if data for single key amino acids at a binding interface are included. In case of binding site predictions with limited accuracy, only modest improvement compared with unbiased docking was found. The optimisation of the protocol to bias the search towards predicted binding sites was found to further improve the docking performance resulting in approximately 40% acceptable solutions within the top 10 docking predictions compared with 22% in case of unbiased docking of unbound protein structures.     

An ultra‐high affinity protein–protein interface displaying sequence‐robustness

Protein–protein interactions are crucial in biology and play roles in for example, the immune system, signaling pathways, and enzyme regulation. Ultra‐high affinity interactions (K _d <0.1 nM) occur in these systems, however, structures and energetics behind stability of ultra‐high affinity protein–protein complexes are not well understood. Regulation of the starch debranching barley limit dextrinase (LD) and its endogenous cereal type inhibitor (LDI) exemplifies an ultra‐high affinity complex (K _d of 42 pM). In this study the LD–LDI complex is investigated to unveil how robust the ultra‐high affinity is to LDI sequence variation at the protein–protein interface and whether alternative sequences can retain the ultra‐high binding affinity. The interface of LD–LDI was engineered using computational protein redesign aiming at identifying LDI variants predicted to retain ultra‐high binding affinity. These variants present a very diverse set of mutations going beyond conservative and alanine substitutions typically used to probe interfaces. Surface plasmon resonance analysis of the LDI variants revealed that high affinity of LD–LDI requires interactions of several residues at the rim of the protein interface, unlike the classical hotspot arrangement where key residues are found at the center of the interface. Notably, substitution of interface residues in LDI, including amino acids with functional groups different from the wild‐type, could occur without loss of affinity. This demonstrates that ultra‐high binding affinity can be conferred without hotspot residues, thus making complexes more robust to mutational drift in evolution. The present mutational analysis also demonstrates how energetic coupling can emerge between residues at large distances at the interface.     

Sulfotyrosine residues: Interaction specificity determinants for extracellular protein–protein interactions

Tyrosine sulfation, a post-translational modification, can determine and often enhance protein–protein interaction specificity. Sulfotyrosyl residues (sTyrs) are formed by the enzyme tyrosyl-protein sulfotransferase during protein maturation in the Golgi apparatus and most often occur singly or as a cluster within a six-residue span. With both negative charge and aromatic character, sTyr facilitates numerous atomic contacts as visualized in binding interface structural models, thus there is no discernible binding site consensus. Found exclusively in secreted proteins, in this review, we discuss the four broad sequence contexts in which sTyr has been observed: first, a solitary sTyr has been shown to be critical for diverse high-affinity interactions, such as between peptide hormones and their receptors, in both plants and animals. Second, sTyr clusters within structurally flexible anionic segments are essential for a variety of cellular processes, including coreceptor binding to the HIV-1 envelope spike protein during virus entry, chemokine interactions with receptors, and leukocyte rolling cell adhesion. Third, a subcategory of sTyr clusters is found in conserved acidic sequences termed hirudin-like motifs that enable proteins to interact with thrombin; consequently, many proven and potential therapeutic proteins derived from blood-consuming invertebrates depend on sTyrs for their activity. Finally, several proteins that interact with collagen or similar proteins contain one or more sTyrs within an acidic residue array. Refined methods to direct sTyr incorporation in peptides synthesized both in vitro and in vivo, together with continued advances in mass spectrometry and affinity detection, promise to accelerate discoveries of sTyr occurrence and function.     

Mass spectrometry‐based protein–protein interaction networks for the study of human diseases

A better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying disease is key for expediting the development of novel therapeutic interventions. Disease mechanisms are often mediated by interactions between proteins. Insights into the physical rewiring of protein–protein interactions in response to mutations, pathological conditions, or pathogen infection can advance our understanding of disease etiology, progression, and pathogenesis and can lead to the identification of potential druggable targets. Advances in quantitative mass spectrometry (MS)‐based approaches have allowed unbiased mapping of these disease‐mediated changes in protein–protein interactions on a global scale. Here, we review MS techniques that have been instrumental for the identification of protein–protein interactions at a system‐level, and we discuss the challenges associated with these methodologies as well as novel MS advancements that aim to address these challenges. An overview of examples from diverse disease contexts illustrates the potential of MS‐based protein–protein interaction mapping approaches for revealing disease mechanisms, pinpointing new therapeutic targets, and eventually moving toward personalized applications.     

Computational design of small molecular modulators of protein–protein interactions with a novel thermodynamic cycle: Allosteric inhibitors of HIV‐1 integrase

Targeting protein–protein interactions for therapeutic development involves designing small molecules to either disrupt or enhance a known PPI. For this purpose, it is necessary to compute reliably the effect of chemical modifications of small molecules on the protein–protein association free energy. Here we present results obtained using a novel thermodynamic free energy cycle, for the rational design of allosteric inhibitors of HIV‐1 integrase (ALLINI) that act specifically in the early stage of the infection cycle. The new compounds can serve as molecular probes to dissect the multifunctional mechanisms of ALLINIs to inform the discovery of new allosteric inhibitors. The free energy protocol developed here can be more broadly applied to study quantitatively the effects of small molecules on modulating the strengths of protein–protein interactions.