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

Background

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

     

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.     

A combination of rescoring and refinement significantly improves protein docking performance

To determine the structures of protein-protein interactions, protein docking is a valuable tool that complements experimental methods to characterize protein complexes. Although protein docking can often produce a near-native solution within a set of global docking predictions, there are sometimes predictions that require refinement to elucidate correct contacts and conformation. Previously, we developed the ZRANK algorithm to rerank initial docking predictions from ZDOCK, a docking program developed by our lab. In this study, we have applied the ZRANK algorithm toward refinement of protein docking models in conjunction with the protein docking program RosettaDock. This was performed by reranking global docking predictions from ZDOCK, performing local side chain and rigid-body refinement using RosettaDock, and selecting the refined model based on ZRANK score. For comparison, we examined using RosettaDock score instead of ZRANK score, and a larger perturbation size for the RosettaDock search, and determined that the larger RosettaDock perturbation size with ZRANK scoring was optimal. This method was validated on a protein-protein docking benchmark. For refining docking benchmark predictions from the newest ZDOCK version, this led to improved structures of top-ranked hits in 20 of 27 cases, and an increase from 23 to 27 cases with hits in the top 20 predictions. Finally, we optimized the ZRANK energy function using refined models, which provides a significant improvement over the original ZRANK energy function. Using this optimized function and the refinement protocol, the numbers of cases with hits ranked at number one increased from 12 to 19 and from 7 to 15 for two different ZDOCK versions. This shows the effective combination of independently developed docking protocols (ZDOCK/ZRANK, and RosettaDock), indicating that using diverse search and scoring functions can improve protein docking results.     

A simple reference state makes a significant improvement in near-native selections from structurally refined docking decoys

Near-native selections from docking decoys have proved challenging especially when unbound proteins are used in the molecular docking. One reason is that significant atomic clashes in docking decoys lead to poor predictions of binding affinities of near native decoys. Atomic clashes can be removed by structural refinement through energy minimization. Such an energy minimization, however, will lead to an unrealistic bias toward docked structures with large interfaces. Here, we extend an empirical energy function developed for protein design to protein-protein docking selection by introducing a simple reference state that removes the unrealistic dependence of binding affinity of docking decoys on the buried solvent accessible surface area of interface. The energy function called EMPIRE (EMpirical Protein-InteRaction Energy), when coupled with a refinement strategy, is found to provide a significantly improved success rate in near native selections when applied to RosettaDock and refined ZDOCK docking decoys. Our work underlines the importance of removing nonspecific interactions from specific ones in near native selections from docking decoys.     

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.     

WHISCY: What information does surface conservation yield? Application to data‐driven docking

Protein-protein interactions play a key role in biological processes. Identifying the interacting residues is a first step toward understanding these interactions at a structural level. In this study, the interface prediction program WHISCY is presented. It combines surface conservation and structural information to predict protein-protein interfaces. The accuracy of the predictions is more than three times higher than a random prediction. These predictions have been combined with another interface prediction program, ProMate [Neuvirth et al. J Mol Biol 2004;338:181-199], resulting in an even more accurate predictor. The usefulness of the predictions was tested using the data-driven docking program HADDOCK [Dominguez et al. J Am Chem Soc 2003;125:1731-1737] in an unbound docking experiment, with the goal of generating as many near-native structures as possible. Unrefined rigid body docking solutions within 10 A ligand RMSD from the true structure were generated for 22 out of 25 docked complexes. For 18 complexes, more than 100 of the 8000 generated models were correct. Our results demonstrates the potential of using interface predictions to drive protein-protein docking.     

ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes

MOTIVATION: Predicting protein interactions is one of the most challenging problems in functional genomics. Given two proteins known to interact, current docking methods evaluate billions of docked conformations by simple scoring functions, and in addition to near-native structures yield many false positives, i.e. structures with good surface complementarity but far from the native. RESULTS: We have developed a fast algorithm for filtering docked conformations with good surface complementarity, and ranking them based on their clustering properties. The free energy filters select complexes with lowest desolvation and electrostatic energies. Clustering is then used to smooth the local minima and to select the ones with the broadest energy wells-a property associated with the free energy at the binding site. The robustness of the method was tested on sets of 2000 docked conformations generated for 48 pairs of interacting proteins. In 31 of these cases, the top 10 predictions include at least one near-native complex, with an average RMSD of 5 A from the native structure. The docking and discrimination method also provides good results for a number of complexes that were used as targets in the Critical Assessment of PRedictions of Interactions experiment. AVAILABILITY: The fully automated docking and discrimination server ClusPro can be found at http://structure.bu.edu     

Sampling and scoring: A marriage made in heaven

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

Protein-protein docking with multiple residue conformations and residue substitutions

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

Refinement of unbound protein docking studies using biological knowledge

In this work we present two methods for the reranking of protein-protein docking studies. One scoring method searches the InterDom database for domains that are available in the proteins to be docked and evaluates the interaction of these domains in other complexes of known structure. The second one analyzes the interface of each proposed conformation with regard to the conservation of Phe, Met, and Trp and their polar neighbor residues. The special relevance of these residues is based on a publication by Ma et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:5772-5777), who compared the conservation of all residues in the interface region to the conservation on the rest of the protein's surface. The scoring functions were tested on 30 unbound docking test cases. The evaluation of the methods is based on the ability to rerank the output of a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) docking. Both were able to improve the ranking of the docking output. The best improvement was achieved for enzyme-inhibitor examples. Especially the domain-based scoring function was successful and able to place a near-native solution on one of the first six ranks for 13 of 17 (76%) enzyme-inhibitor complexes [in 53% (nine complexes) even on the first rank]. The method evaluating residue conservation allowed us to increase the number of good solutions within the first 100 ranks out of approximately 9000 in 82% of the 17 enzyme-inhibitor test cases, and for seven (41%) out of 17 enzyme-inhibitor complexes, a near native solution was placed within the first seven ranks.     

Improving ranking of models for protein complexes with side chain modeling and atomic potentials

An atomically detailed potential for docking pairs of proteins is derived using mathematical programming. A refinement algorithm that builds atomically detailed models of the complex and combines coarse grained and atomic scoring is introduced. The refinement step consists of remodeling the interface side chains of the top scoring decoys from rigid docking followed by a short energy minimization. The refined models are then re‐ranked using a combination of coarse grained and atomic potentials. The docking algorithm including the refinement and re‐ranking, is compared favorably to other leading docking packages like ZDOCK, Cluspro, and PATCHDOCK, on the ZLAB 3.0 Benchmark and a test set of 30 novel complexes. A detailed analysis shows that coarse grained potentials perform better than atomic potentials for realistic unbound docking (where the exact structures of the individual bound proteins are unknown), probably because atomic potentials are more sensitive to local errors. Nevertheless, the atomic potential captures a different signal from the residue potential and as a result a combination of the two scores provides a significantly better prediction than each of the approaches alone. Proteins 2013. © 2012 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.     

DynaDock: A new molecular dynamics‐based algorithm for protein–peptide docking including receptor flexibility

Molecular docking programs play an important role in drug development and many well‐established methods exist. However, there are two situations for which the performance of most approaches is still not satisfactory, namely inclusion of receptor flexibility and docking of large, flexible ligands like peptides. In this publication a new approach is presented for docking peptides into flexible receptors. For this purpose a two step procedure was developed: first, the protein–peptide conformational space is scanned and approximate ligand poses are identified and second, the identified ligand poses are refined by a new molecular dynamics‐based method, optimized potential molecular dynamics (OPMD). The OPMD approach uses soft‐core potentials for the protein–peptide interactions and applies a new optimization scheme to the soft‐core potential. Comparison with refinement results obtained by conventional molecular dynamics and a soft‐core scaling approach shows significant improvements in the sampling capability for the OPMD method. Thus, the number of starting poses needed for successful refinement is much lower than for the other methods. The algorithm was evaluated on 15 protein–peptide complexes with 2–16mer peptides. Docking poses with peptide RMSD values <2.10 Å from the equilibrated experimental structures were obtained in all cases. For four systems docking into the unbound receptor structures was performed, leading to peptide RMSD values <2.12 Å. Using a specifically fitted scoring function in 11 of 15 cases the best scoring poses featured a peptide RMSD ≤2.10 Å. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Structure refinement of membrane proteins via molecular dynamics simulations

A refinement protocol based on physics‐based techniques established for water soluble proteins is tested for membrane protein structures. Initial structures were generated by homology modeling and sampled via molecular dynamics simulations in explicit lipid bilayer and aqueous solvent systems. Snapshots from the simulations were selected based on scoring with either knowledge‐based or implicit membrane‐based scoring functions and averaged to obtain refined models. The protocol resulted in consistent and significant refinement of the membrane protein structures similar to the performance of refinement methods for soluble proteins. Refinement success was similar between sampling in the presence of lipid bilayers and aqueous solvent but the presence of lipid bilayers may benefit the improvement of lipid‐facing residues. Scoring with knowledge‐based functions (DFIRE and RWplus) was found to be as good as scoring using implicit membrane‐based scoring functions suggesting that differences in internal packing is more important than orientations relative to the membrane during the refinement of membrane protein homology models.     

Computer modeling of human angiogenin-dinucleotide substrate interaction

Structures of substrate bound human angiogenin complexes have been obtained for the first time by computer modeling. The dinucleotides CpA and UpA have been docked onto human angiogenin using a systematic grid search procedure in torsion and Eulerian angle space. The docking was guided throughout by the similarity of angiogenin-substrate interactions with interactions of RNase A and its substrate. The models were subjected to 1 nanosecond of molecular dynamics to access their stability. Structures extracted from MD simulations were refined by simulated annealing. Stable hydrogen bonds that bridged protein and ligand residues during the MD simulations were taken as restraints for simulated annealing. Our analysis on the MD structures and annealed models explains the substrate specificity of human angiogenin and is in agreement with experimental results. This study also predicts the B2 binding site residues of angiogenin, for which no experimental information is available so far. In the case of one of the substrates, CpA, we have also identified the presence of a water molecule that invariantly bridges the B2 base with the protein. We have compared our results to the RNase A-substrate complex and highlight the similarities and differences.     

Novel sampling strategies and a coarse-grained score function for docking homomers,flexible heteromers,and oligosaccharides using Rosetta in CAPRI rounds 37–45

Critical Assessment of PRediction of Interactions (CAPRI) rounds 37 through 45 introduced larger complexes, new macromolecules, and multistage assemblies. For these rounds, we used and expanded docking methods in Rosetta to model 23 target complexes. We successfully predicted 14 target complexes and recognized and refined near-native models generated by other groups for two further targets. Notably, for targets T110 and T136, we achieved the closest prediction of any CAPRI participant. We created several innovative approaches during these rounds. Since round 39 (target 122), we have used the new RosettaDock 4.0, which has a revamped coarse-grained energy function and the ability to perform conformer selection during docking with hundreds of pregenerated protein backbones. Ten of the complexes had some degree of symmetry in their interactions, so we tested Rosetta SymDock, realized its shortcomings, and developed the next-generation symmetric docking protocol, SymDock2, which includes docking of multiple backbones and induced-fit refinement. Since the last CAPRI assessment, we also developed methods for modeling and designing carbohydrates in Rosetta, and we used them to successfully model oligosaccharide-protein complexes in round 41. Although the results were broadly encouraging, they also highlighted the pressing need to invest in (a) flexible docking algorithms with the ability to model loop and linker motions and in (b) new sampling and scoring methods for oligosaccharide-protein interactions.     

On docking, scoring and assessing protein-DNA complexes in a rigid-body framework

We consider the identification of interacting protein-nucleic acid partners using the rigid body docking method FTdock, which is systematic and exhaustive in the exploration of docking conformations. The accuracy of rigid body docking methods is tested using known protein-DNA complexes for which the docked and undocked structures are both available. Additional tests with large decoy sets probe the efficacy of two published statistically derived scoring functions that contain a huge number of parameters. In contrast, we demonstrate that state-of-the-art machine learning techniques can enormously reduce the number of parameters required, thereby identifying the relevant docking features using a miniscule fraction of the number of parameters in the prior works. The present machine learning study considers a 300 dimensional vector (dependent on only 15 parameters), termed the Chemical Context Profile (CCP), where each dimension reflects a specific type of protein amino acid-nucleic acid base interaction. The CCP is designed to capture the chemical complementarities of the interface and is well suited for machine learning techniques. Our objective function is the Chemical Context Discrepancy (CCD), which is defined as the angle between the native system's CCP vector and the decoy's vector and which serves as a substitute for the more commonly used root mean squared deviation (RMSD). We demonstrate that the CCP provides a useful scoring function when certain dimensions are properly weighted. Finally, we explore how the amino acids on a protein's surface can help guide DNA binding, first through long-range interactions, followed by direct contacts, according to specific preferences for either the major or minor grooves of the DNA.     

Predicting protein-protein interactions on a proteome scale by matching evolutionary and structural similarities at interfaces using PRISM

Prediction of protein-protein interactions at the structural level on the proteome scale is important because it allows prediction of protein function, helps drug discovery and takes steps toward genome-wide structural systems biology. We provide a protocol (termed PRISM, protein interactions by structural matching) for large-scale prediction of protein-protein interactions and assembly of protein complex structures. The method consists of two components: rigid-body structural comparisons of target proteins to known template protein-protein interfaces and flexible refinement using a docking energy function. The PRISM rationale follows our observation that globally different protein structures can interact via similar architectural motifs. PRISM predicts binding residues by using structural similarity and evolutionary conservation of putative binding residue 'hot spots'. Ultimately, PRISM could help to construct cellular pathways and functional, proteome-scale annotation. PRISM is implemented in Python and runs in a UNIX environment. The program accepts Protein Data Bank-formatted protein structures and is available at http://prism.ccbb.ku.edu.tr/prism_protocol/.