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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Exploring functional roles of multibinding protein interfaces

Cellular processes are highly interconnected and many proteins are shared in different pathways. Some of these shared proteins or protein families may interact with diverse partners using the same interface regions; such multibinding proteins are the subject of our study. The main goal of our study is to attempt to decipher the mechanisms of specific molecular recognition of multiple diverse partners by promiscuous protein regions. To address this, we attempt to analyze the physicochemical properties of multibinding interfaces and highlight the major mechanisms of functional switches realized through multibinding. We find that only 5% of protein families in the structure database have multibinding interfaces, and multibinding interfaces do not show any higher sequence conservation compared with the background interface sites. We highlight several important functional mechanisms utilized by multibinding families. (a) Overlap between different functional pathways can be prevented by the switches involving nearby residues of the same interfacial region. (b) Interfaces can be reused in pathways where the substrate should be passed from one protein to another sequentially. (c) The same protein family can develop different specificities toward different binding partners reusing the same interface; and finally, (d) inhibitors can attach to substrate binding sites as substrate mimicry and thereby prevent substrate binding.     

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.     

The flexible C‐terminal arm of the Lassa arenavirus Z‐protein mediates interactions with multiple binding partners

The arenavirus genome encodes for a Z‐protein, which contains a RING domain that coordinates two zinc ions, and has been identified as having several functional roles at various stages of the virus life cycle. Z‐protein binds to multiple host proteins and has been directly implicated in the promotion of viral budding, repression of mRNA translation, and apoptosis of infected cells. Using homology models of the Z‐protein from Lassa strain arenavirus, replica exchange molecular dynamics (MD) was used to refine the structures, which were then subsequently clustered. Population‐weighted ensembles of low‐energy cluster representatives were predicted based upon optimal agreement of the chemical shifts computed with the SPARTA program with the experimental NMR chemical shifts. A member of the refined ensemble was indentified to be a potential binder of budding factor Tsg101 based on its correspondence to the structure of the HIV‐1 Gag late domain when bound to Tsg101. Members of these ensembles were docked against the crystal structure of human eIF4E translation initiation factor. Two plausible binding modes emerged based upon their agreement with experimental observation, favorable interaction energies and stability during MD trajectories. Mutations to Z are proposed that would either inhibit both binding mechanisms or selectively inhibit only one mode. The C‐terminal domain conformation of the most populated member of the representative ensemble shielded protein‐binding recognition motifs for Tsg101 and eIF4E and represents the most populated state free in solution. We propose that C‐terminal flexibility is key for mediating the different functional states of the Z‐protein. Proteins 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

A minimal model of protein–protein binding affinities

A minimal model of protein–protein binding affinity that takes into account only two structural features of the complex, the size of its interface, and the amplitude of the conformation change between the free and bound subunits, is tested on the 144 complexes of a structure‐affinity benchmark. It yields K_d values that are within two orders of magnitude of the experiment for 67% of the complexes, within three orders for 88%, and fails on 12%, which display either large conformation changes, or a very high or a low affinity. The minimal model lacks the specificity and accuracy needed to make useful affinity predictions, but it should help in assessing the added value of parameters used by more elaborate models, and set a baseline for evaluating their performances.     

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.     

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.     

Benchmarking protein–protein interface predictions: Why you should care about protein size

A number of predictive methods have been developed to predict protein–protein binding sites. Each new method is traditionally benchmarked using sets of protein structures of various sizes, and global statistics are used to assess the quality of the prediction. Little attention has been paid to the potential bias due to protein size on these statistics. Indeed, small proteins involve proportionally more residues at interfaces than large ones. If a predictive method is biased toward small proteins, this can lead to an over‐estimation of its performance. Here, we investigate the bias due to the size effect when benchmarking protein‐protein interface prediction on the widely used docking benchmark 4.0. First, we simulate random scores that favor small proteins over large ones. Instead of the 0.5 AUC (Area Under the Curve) value expected by chance, these biased scores result in an AUC equal to 0.6 using hypergeometric distributions, and up to 0.65 using constant scores. We then use real prediction results to illustrate how to detect the size bias by shuffling, and subsequently correct it using a simple conversion of the scores into normalized ranks. In addition, we investigate the scores produced by eight published methods and show that they are all affected by the size effect, which can change their relative ranking. The size effect also has an impact on linear combination scores by modifying the relative contributions of each method. In the future, systematic corrections should be applied when benchmarking predictive methods using data sets with mixed protein sizes. Proteins 2014; 82:1444–1452. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A benchmark testing ground for integrating homology modeling and protein docking

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

How maltose influences structural changes to bind to maltose‐binding protein: Results from umbrella sampling simulation

A well‐studied periplasmic‐binding protein involved in the abstraction of maltose is maltose‐binding protein (MBP), which undergoes a ligand‐induced conformational transition from an open (ligand‐free) to a closed (ligand‐bound) state. Umbrella sampling simulations have been us to estimate the free energy of binding of maltose to MBP and to trace the potential of mean force of the unbinding event using the center‐of‐mass distance between the protein and ligand as the reaction coordinate. The free energy thus obtained compares nicely with the experimentally measured value justifying our theoretical basis. Measurement of the domain angle (N‐terminal‐domain – hinge – C‐terminal‐domain) along the unbinding pathway established the existence of three different states. Starting from a closed state, the protein shifts to an open conformation during the initial unbinding event of the ligand then resides in a semi‐open conformation and later resides predominantly in an open‐state. These transitions along the ligand unbinding pathway have been captured in greater depth using principal component analysis. It is proposed that in mixed‐model, both conformational selection and an induced‐fit mechanism combine to the ligand recognition process in MBP. 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.     

Benchmarking of structure refinement methods for protein complex models

Protein structure docking is the process in which the quaternary structure of a protein complex is predicted from individual tertiary structures of the protein subunits. Protein docking is typically performed in two main steps. The subunits are first docked while keeping them rigid to form the complex, which is then followed by structure refinement. Structure refinement is crucial for a practical use of computational protein docking models, as it is aimed for correcting conformations of interacting residues and atoms at the interface. Here, we benchmarked the performance of eight existing protein structure refinement methods in refinement of protein complex models. We show that the fraction of native contacts between subunits is by far the most straightforward metric to improve. However, backbone dependent metrics, based on the Root Mean Square Deviation proved more difficult to improve via refinement.     

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/.