Protein social behavior makes a stronger signal for partner identification than surface geometry

Cells are interactive living systems where proteins movements, interactions and regulation are substantially free from centralized management. How protein physico‐chemical and geometrical properties determine who interact with whom remains far from fully understood. We show that characterizing how a protein behaves with many potential interactors in a complete cross‐docking study leads to a sharp identification of its cellular/true/native partner(s). We define a sociability index, or S‐index, reflecting whether a protein likes or not to pair with other proteins. Formally, we propose a suitable normalization function that accounts for protein sociability and we combine it with a simple interface‐based (ranking) score to discriminate partners from non‐interactors. We show that sociability is an important factor and that the normalization permits to reach a much higher discriminative power than shape complementarity docking scores. The social effect is also observed with more sophisticated docking algorithms. Docking conformations are evaluated using experimental binding sites. These latter approximate in the best possible way binding sites predictions, which have reached high accuracy in recent years. This makes our analysis helpful for a global understanding of partner identification and for suggesting discriminating strategies. These results contradict previous findings claiming the partner identification problem being solvable solely with geometrical docking. Proteins 2016; 85:137–154. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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

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

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.     

A non‐redundant protein–RNA docking benchmark version 2.0

We present an updated version of the protein–RNA docking benchmark, which we first published four years back. The non‐redundant protein–RNA docking benchmark version 2.0 consists of 126 test cases, a threefold increase in number compared to its previous version. The present version consists of 21 unbound–unbound cases, of which, in 12 cases, the unbound RNAs are taken from another complex. It also consists of 95 unbound–bound cases where only the protein is available in the unbound state. Besides, we introduce 10 new bound–unbound cases where only the RNA is found in the unbound state. Based on the degree of conformational change of the interface residues upon complex formation the benchmark is classified into 72 rigid‐body cases, 25 semiflexible cases and 19 full flexible cases. It also covers a wide range of conformational flexibility including small side chain movement to large domain swapping in protein structures as well as flipping and restacking in RNA bases. This benchmark should provide the docking community with more test cases for evaluating rigid‐body as well as flexible docking algorithms. Besides, it will also facilitate the development of new algorithms that require large number of training set. The protein–RNA docking benchmark version 2.0 can be freely downloaded from http://www.csb.iitkgp.ernet.in/applications/PRDBv2 . Proteins 2017; 85:256–267. © 2016 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.     

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.     

Monte Carlo replica‐exchange based ensemble docking of protein conformations

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

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

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

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.     

DockTrina: Docking triangular protein trimers

In spite of the abundance of oligomeric proteins within a cell, the structural characterization of protein–protein interactions is still a challenging task. In particular, many of these interactions involve heteromeric complexes, which are relatively difficult to determine experimentally. Hence there is growing interest in using computational techniques to model such complexes. However, assembling large heteromeric complexes computationally is a highly combinatorial problem. Nonetheless the problem can be simplified greatly by considering interactions between protein trimers. After dimers and monomers, triangular trimers (i.e. trimers with pair‐wise contacts between all three pairs of proteins) are the most frequently observed quaternary structural motifs according to the three‐dimensional (3D) complex database. This article presents DockTrina, a novel protein docking method for modeling the 3D structures of nonsymmetrical triangular trimers. The method takes as input pair‐wise contact predictions from a rigid body docking program. It then scans and scores all possible combinations of pairs of monomers using a very fast root mean square deviation test. Finally, it ranks the predictions using a scoring function which combines triples of pair‐wise contact terms and a geometric clash penalty term. The overall approach takes less than 2 min per complex on a modern desktop computer. The method is tested and validated using a benchmark set of 220 bound and seven unbound protein trimer structures. DockTrina will be made available at http://nano‐d.inrialpes.fr/software/docktrina . Proteins 2014; 82:34–44. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Computational investigation of proton transfer,pKa shifts and pH‐optimum of protein–DNA and protein–RNA complexes

Protein–nucleic acid interactions play a crucial role in many biological processes. This work investigates the changes of pKa values and protonation states of ionizable groups (including nucleic acid bases) that may occur at protein–nucleic acid binding. Taking advantage of the recently developed pKa calculation tool DelphiPka, we utilize the large protein–nucleic acid interaction database (NPIDB database) to model pKa shifts caused by binding. It has been found that the protein's interfacial basic residues experience favorable electrostatic interactions while the protein acidic residues undergo proton uptake to reduce the energy cost upon the binding. This is in contrast with observations made for protein–protein complexes. In terms of DNA/RNA, both base groups and phosphate groups of nucleotides are found to participate in binding. Some DNA/RNA bases undergo pKa shifts at complex formation, with the binding process tending to suppress charged states of nucleic acid bases. In addition, a weak correlation is found between the pH‐optimum of protein–DNA/RNA binding free energy and the pH‐optimum of protein folding free energy. Overall, the pH‐dependence of protein–nucleic acid binding is not predicted to be as significant as that of protein–protein association. Proteins 2017; 85:282–295. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Different combinations of atomic interactions predict protein‐small molecule and protein‐DNA/RNA affinities with similar accuracy

Interactions between proteins and other molecules play essential roles in all biological processes. Although it is widely held that a protein's ligand specificity is determined primarily by its three‐dimensional structure, the general principles by which structure determines ligand binding remain poorly understood. Here we use statistical analyses of a large number of protein?ligand complexes with associated binding‐affinity measurements to quantitatively characterize how combinations of atomic interactions contribute to ligand affinity. We find that there are significant differences in how atomic interactions determine ligand affinity for proteins that bind small chemical ligands, those that bind DNA/RNA and those that interact with other proteins. Although protein‐small molecule and protein‐DNA/RNA binding affinities can be accurately predicted from structural data, models predicting one type of interaction perform poorly on the others. Additionally, the particular combinations of atomic interactions required to predict binding affinity differed between small‐molecule and DNA/RNA data sets, consistent with the conclusion that the structural bases determining ligand affinity differ among interaction types. In contrast to what we observed for small‐molecule and DNA/RNA interactions, no statistical models were capable of predicting protein?protein affinity with >60% correlation. We demonstrate the potential usefulness of protein‐DNA/RNA binding prediction as a possible tool for high‐throughput virtual screening to guide laboratory investigations, suggesting that quantitative characterization of diverse molecular interactions may have practical applications as well as fundamentally advancing our understanding of how molecular structure translates into function. Proteins 2015; 83:2100–2114. © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Holo‐BtuF stabilizes the open conformation of the vitamin B12 ABC transporter BtuCD

While there is evidence that other ABC transporters can tell between empty and loaded substrate binding protein, reconstitution experiments suggest otherwise for the Escherichia coli vitamin B12 importer BtuCD‐F. Here, we address the question of BtuCD‐F substrate sensitivity in a combined protein–protein docking and molecular dynamics simulation approach. Starting from the BtuCD and holo‐BtuF crystal structures, we model two holo‐BtuCD‐F docking complexes differing by a 180° orientation of BtuF. One of these is similar to the apo‐BtuCD‐F crystal structure. Both docking complexes were embedded in a lipid/water environment to investigate their dynamics and BtuCD's conformational response to the presence and absence of BtuF, vitamin B12, and Mg‐ATP in a series of 28 independent MD simulations. We find holo‐BtuF stabilizing the open conformation of BtuCD, whereas the transporter begins to close again when BtuF or vitamin B12 is removed—suggesting BtuCD‐F is capable of substrate sensitivity. We identified BtuC transmembrane helices 3 and 5, the L‐loops and the adjacent helices comprised of BtuC residues 170–180 as hotspots of conformational change. We propose the latter to act as substrate sensors. BtuF‐Trp44 appears to act as a lid on the vitamin B12 binding cleft in BtuF X‐ray structures and protrudes into the BtuCD transport channel in one of our simulations, which might represent an initial step in vitamin B12 uptake. On an average, we observe subunit motions where the nucleotide binding domains approach each other while the transmembrane domains display an opening trend toward the periplasm. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.