Identification of protein functional surfaces by the concept of a split pocket

The function of a protein is often fulfilled via molecular interactions on its surfaces, so identifying the functional surface(s) of a protein is helpful for understanding its function. Here, we introduce the concept of a split pocket, which is a pocket that is split by a cognate ligand. We use a geometric approach that is site‐specific. Specifically, we first compute a set of all pockets in the protein with its ligand(s) and a set of all pockets with the ligand(s) removed and then compare the two sets of pockets to identify the split pocket(s) of the protein. To reduce the search space and expedite the process of surface partitioning, we design probe radii according to the physicochemical textures of molecules. Our method achieves a success rate of 96% on a benchmark test set. We conduct a large‐scale computation to identify ～19,000 split pockets from 11,328 structures (1.16 million potential pockets); for each pocket, we obtain residue composition, solvent‐accessible area, and molecular volume. With this database of split pockets, our method can be used to predict the functional surfaces of unbound structures. Indeed, the functional surface of an unbound protein may often be found from its similarity to remotely related bound forms that belong to distinct folds. Finally, we apply our method to identify glucose‐binding proteins, including unbound structures. Our study demonstrates the power of geometric and evolutionary matching for studying protein functional evolution and provides a framework for classifying protein functions by local spatial patterns of functional surfaces. Proteins 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Analysis and prediction of calcium-binding pockets from apo-protein structures exhibiting calcium-induced localized conformational changes

Calcium binding in proteins exhibits a wide range of polygonal geometries that relate directly to an equally diverse set of biological functions. The binding process stabilizes protein structures and typically results in local conformational change and/or global restructuring of the backbone. Previously, we established the MUG program, which utilized multiple geometries in the Ca²⁺‐binding pockets of holoproteins to identify such pockets, ignoring possible Ca²⁺‐induced conformational change. In this article, we first report our progress in the analysis of Ca²⁺‐induced conformational changes followed by improved prediction of Ca²⁺‐binding sites in the large group of Ca²⁺‐binding proteins that exhibit only localized conformational changes. The MUG^SR algorithm was devised to incorporate side chain torsional rotation as a predictor. The output from MUG^SR presents groups of residues where each group, typically containing two to five residues, is a potential binding pocket. MUG^SR was applied to both X‐ray apo structures and NMR holo structures, which did not use calcium distance constraints in structure calculations. Predicted pockets were validated by comparison with homologous holo structures. Defining a “correct hit” as a group of residues containing at least two true ligand residues, the sensitivity was at least 90%; whereas for a “correct hit” defined as a group of residues containing at least three true ligand residues, the sensitivity was at least 78%. These data suggest that Ca²⁺‐binding pockets are at least partially prepositioned to chelate the ion in the apo form of the protein.     

A novel and efficient tool for locating and characterizing protein cavities and binding sites

Systematic investigation of a protein and its binding site characteristics are crucial for designing small molecules that modulate protein functions. However, fundamental uncertainties in binding site interactions and insufficient knowledge of the properties of even well‐defined binding pockets can make it difficult to design optimal drugs. Herein, we report the development and implementation of a cavity detection algorithm built with HINT toolkit functions that we are naming Vectorial Identification of Cavity Extents (VICE). This very efficient algorithm is based on geometric criteria applied to simple integer grid maps. In testing, we carried out a systematic investigation on a very diverse data set of proteins and protein–protein/protein–polynucleotide complexes for locating and characterizing the indentations, cavities, pockets, grooves, channels, and surface regions. Additionally, we evaluated a curated data set of unbound proteins for which a ligand‐bound protein structures are also known; here the VICE algorithm located the actual ligand in the largest cavity in 83% of the cases and in one of the three largest in 90% of the cases. An interactive front‐end provides a quick and simple procedure for locating, displaying and manipulating cavities in these structures. Information describing the cavity, including its volume and surface area metrics, and lists of atoms, residues, and/or chains lining the binding pocket, can be easily obtained and analyzed. For example, the relative cross‐sectional surface area (to total surface area) of cavity openings in well‐enclosed cavities is 0.06 ± 0.04 and in surface clefts or crevices is 0.25 ± 0.09. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Optimized distance‐dependent atom‐pair‐based potential DOOP for protein structure prediction

The DOcking decoy‐based Optimized Potential (DOOP) energy function for protein structure prediction is based on empirical distance‐dependent atom‐pair interactions. To optimize the atom‐pair interactions, native protein structures are decomposed into polypeptide chain segments that correspond to structural motives involving complete secondary structure elements. They constitute near native ligand–receptor systems (or just pairs). Thus, a total of 8609 ligand–receptor systems were prepared from 954 selected proteins. For each of these hypothetical ligand–receptor systems, 1000 evenly sampled docking decoys with 0–10 Å interface root‐mean‐square‐deviation (iRMSD) were generated with a method used before for protein–protein docking. A neural network‐based optimization method was applied to derive the optimized energy parameters using these decoys so that the energy function mimics the funnel‐like energy landscape for the interaction between these hypothetical ligand–receptor systems. Thus, our method hierarchically models the overall funnel‐like energy landscape of native protein structures. The resulting energy function was tested on several commonly used decoy sets for native protein structure recognition and compared with other statistical potentials. In combination with a torsion potential term which describes the local conformational preference, the atom‐pair‐based potential outperforms other reported statistical energy functions in correct ranking of native protein structures for a variety of decoy sets. This is especially the case for the most challenging ROSETTA decoy set, although it does not take into account side chain orientation‐dependence explicitly. The DOOP energy function for protein structure prediction, the underlying database of protein structures with hypothetical ligand–receptor systems and their decoys are freely available at http://agknapp.chemie.fu‐berlin.de/doop/ . Proteins 2015; 83:881–890. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

BSP-SLIM: a blind low-resolution ligand-protein docking approach using predicted protein structures

We developed BSP‐SLIM, a new method for ligand–protein blind docking using low‐resolution protein structures. For a given sequence, protein structures are first predicted by I‐TASSER; putative ligand binding sites are transferred from holo‐template structures which are analogous to the I‐TASSER models; ligand–protein docking conformations are then constructed by shape and chemical match of ligand with the negative image of binding pockets. BSP‐SLIM was tested on 71 ligand–protein complexes from the Astex diverse set where the protein structures were predicted by I‐TASSER with an average RMSD 2.92 Å on the binding residues. Using I‐TASSER models, the median ligand RMSD of BSP‐SLIM docking is 3.99 Å which is 5.94 Å lower than that by AutoDock; the median binding‐site error by BSP‐SLIM is 1.77 Å which is 6.23 Å lower than that by AutoDock and 3.43 Å lower than that by LIGSITE^CSC. Compared to the models using crystal protein structures, the median ligand RMSD by BSP‐SLIM using I‐TASSER models increases by 0.87 Å, while that by AutoDock increases by 8.41 Å; the median binding‐site error by BSP‐SLIM increase by 0.69Å while that by AutoDock and LIGSITE^CSC increases by 7.31 Å and 1.41 Å, respectively. As case studies, BSP‐SLIM was used in virtual screening for six target proteins, which prioritized actives of 25% and 50% in the top 9.2% and 17% of the library on average, respectively. These results demonstrate the usefulness of the template‐based coarse‐grained algorithms in the low‐resolution ligand–protein docking and drug‐screening. An on‐line BSP‐SLIM server is freely available at http://zhanglab.ccmb.med.umich.edu/BSP‐SLIM . Proteins 2012. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Cofactor‐binding sites in proteins of deviating sequence: Comparative analysis and clustering in torsion angle,cavity, and fold space

Small molecules are recognized in protein‐binding pockets through surface‐exposed physicochemical properties. To optimize binding, they have to adopt a conformation corresponding to a local energy minimum within the formed protein–ligand complex. However, their conformational flexibility makes them competent to bind not only to homologous proteins of the same family but also to proteins of remote similarity with respect to the shape of the binding pockets and folding pattern. Considering drug action, such observations can give rise tounexpected and undesired cross reactivity. In this study, datasets of six different cofactors (ADP, ATP, NAD(P)(H), FAD, and acetyl CoA, sharing an adenosine diphosphate moiety as common substructure), observed in multiple crystal structures of protein–cofactor complexes exhibiting sequence identity below 25%, have been analyzed for the conformational properties of the bound ligands, the distribution of physicochemical properties in the accommodating protein‐binding pockets, and the local folding patterns next to the cofactor‐binding site. State‐of‐the‐art clustering techniques have been applied to group the different protein–cofactor complexes in the different spaces. Interestingly, clustering in cavity (Cavbase) and fold space (DALI) reveals virtually the same data structuring. Remarkable relationships can be found among the different spaces. They provide information on how conformations are conserved across the host proteins and which distinct local cavity and fold motifs recognize the different portions of the cofactors. In those cases, where different cofactors are found to be accommodated in a similar fashion to the same fold motifs, only a commonly shared substructure of the cofactors is used for the recognition process. Proteins 2012. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Merging chemical and biological space: Structural mapping of enzyme binding pocket space

Structure‐based drug design tries to mutually map pharmacological space populated by putative target proteins onto chemical space comprising possible small molecule drug candidates. Both spaces are connected where proteins and ligands recognize each other: in the binding pockets. Therefore, it is highly relevant to study the properties of the space composed by all possible binding cavities. In the present contribution, a global mapping of protein cavity space is presented by extracting consensus cavities from individual members of protein families and clustering them in terms of their shape and exposed physicochemical properties. Discovered similarities indicate common binding epitopes in binding pockets independent of any possibly given similarity in sequence and fold space. Unexpected links between remote targets indicate possible cross‐reactivity of ligands and suggest putative side effects. The global clustering of cavity space is compared to a similar clustering of sequence and fold space and compared to chemical ligand space spanned by the chemical properties of small molecules found in binding pockets of crystalline complexes. The overall similarity architecture of sequence, fold, and cavity space differs significantly. Similarities in cavity space can be mapped best to similarities in ligand binding space indicating possible cross‐reactivities. Most cross‐reactivities affect co‐factor and other endogenous ligand binding sites. Proteins 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: measurement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design.

Identification and size characterization of surface pockets and occluded cavities are initial steps in protein structure-based ligand design. A new program, CAST, for automatically locating and measuring protein pockets and cavities, is based on precise computational geometry methods, including alpha shape and discrete flow theory. CAST identifies and measures pockets and pocket mouth openings, as well as cavities. The program specifies the atoms lining pockets, pocket openings, and buried cavities; the volume and area of pockets and cavities; and the area and circumference of mouth openings. CAST analysis of over 100 proteins has been carried out; proteins examined include a set of 51 monomeric enzyme-ligand structures, several elastase-inhibitor complexes, the FK506 binding protein, 30 HIV-1 protease-inhibitor complexes, and a number of small and large protein inhibitors. Medium-sized globular proteins typically have 10-20 pockets/cavities. Most often, binding sites are pockets with 1-2 mouth openings; much less frequently they are cavities. Ligand binding pockets vary widely in size, most within the range 10(2)-10(3)A3. Statistical analysis reveals that the number of pockets and cavities is correlated with protein size, but there is no correlation between the size of the protein and the size of binding sites. Most frequently, the largest pocket/cavity is the active site, but there are a number of instructive exceptions. Ligand volume and binding site volume are somewhat correlated when binding site volume is < or =700 A3, but the ligand seldom occupies the entire site. Auxiliary pockets near the active site have been suggested as additional binding surface for designed ligands (Mattos C et al., 1994, Nat Struct Biol 1:55-58). Analysis of elastase-inhibitor complexes suggests that CAST can identify ancillary pockets suitable for recruitment in ligand design strategies. Analysis of the FK506 binding protein, and of compounds developed in SAR by NMR (Shuker SB et al., 1996, Science 274:1531-1534), indicates that CAST pocket computation may provide a priori identification of target proteins for linked-fragment design. CAST analysis of 30 HIV-1 protease-inhibitor complexes shows that the flexible active site pocket can vary over a range of 853-1,566 A3, and that there are two pockets near or adjoining the active site that may be recruited for ligand design.     

X-Ray crystallographic structural characteristics of Arabidopsis hemoglobin I and their functional implications

Genome of the model dicot flowering plant, Arabidopsis thaliana, a popular tool for understanding molecular biology of plant physiology, encodes all three classes of plant hemoglobins that differ in their sequence, ligand binding and spectral properties. As such these globins are of considerable attention. Crystal structures of few members of plant class I nonsymbiotic hemoglobin have been described earlier. Here we report the crystal structure of Arabidopsis class I hemoglobin (AHb1) to 2.2 ? and compare its key features with the structures of similar nonsymbiotic hemoglobin from other species. Crystal structure of AHb1 is homologous to the related members with similar globin fold and heme pocket architecture. The structure is homodimeric in the asymmetric unit with both distal and proximal histidines coordinating to the heme iron atom. Residues lining the dimeric interface are also conserved in AHb1 with the exception of additional electrostatic interaction between H112 and E113 of each subunit and that involving Y119 through two water molecules. In addition, differences in heme pocket non-covalent interactions, a novel Ser residue at F7 position, Xe binding site variability, internal cavity topology differences, CD loop conformation and stability and other such properties might explain kinetic variability in AHb1. Detailed cavity analysis of AHb1 showed the presence of a novel long tunnel connecting the distal pockets of both the monomers. Presence of such tunnel, along with conformational heterogeneity observed in the two chains, might suggest cooperative ligand binding and support its role in NO scavenging. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Oxygen Binding and Sensing Proteins.     

A novel computational tool for automated structure-based drug design

The computer program LUDI for automated structure-based drug design is described. The program constructs possible new ligands for a given protein of known three-dimensional structure. This novel approach is based upon rules about energetically favourable non-bonded contact geometries between functional groups of the protein and the ligand which are derived from a statistical analysis of crystal packings of organic molecules. In a first step small fragments are docked into the protein binding site in such a way that hydrogen bonds and ionic interactions can be formed with the protein and hydrophobic pockets are filled with lipophilic groups of the ligands. The program can then append further fragments onto a previously positioned fragments or onto an already existing ligand (e.g., a lead structure that one seeks to improve). It is also possible to link several fragments together by bridge fragments to form a complete molecule. All putative ligands retrieved or constructed by LUDI are scored. We use a simple scoring function that was fitted to experimentally determined binding constants of protein–ligand complexes. LUCI is a very fast program with typical execution times of 1–5 min on a work station and is therefore suitable for interactive usage.     

Structural analysis of protein‐ligand interactions: the binding of endogenous compounds and of synthetic drugs

The large number of macromolecular structures deposited with the Protein Data Bank (PDB) describing complexes between proteins and either physiological compounds or synthetic drugs made it possible a systematic analysis of the interactions occurring between proteins and their ligands. In this work, the binding pockets of about 4000 PDB protein‐ligand complexes were investigated and amino acid and interaction types were analyzed. The residues observed with lowest frequency in protein sequences, Trp, His, Met, Tyr, and Phe, turned out to be the most abundant in binding pockets. Significant differences between drug‐like and physiological compounds were found. On average, physiological compounds establish with respect to drugs about twice as many hydrogen bonds with protein atoms, whereas drugs rely more on hydrophobic interactions to establish target selectivity. The large number of PDB structures describing homologous proteins in complex with the same ligand made it possible to analyze the conservation of binding pocket residues among homologous protein structures bound to the same ligand, showing that Gly, Glu, Arg, Asp, His, and Thr are more conserved than other amino acids. Also in the cases in which the same ligand is bound to unrelated proteins, the binding pockets showed significant conservation in the residue types. In this case, the probability of co‐occurrence of the same amino acid type in the binding pockets could be up to thirteen times higher than that expected on a random basis. The trends identified in this study may provide an useful guideline in the process of drug design and lead optimization. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Detection of multiscale pockets on protein surfaces using mathematical morphology

Detection of pockets on protein surfaces is an important step toward finding the binding sites of small molecules. In a previous study, we defined a pocket as a space into which a small spherical probe can enter, but a large probe cannot. The radius of the large probes corresponds to the shallowness of pockets. We showed that each type of binding molecule has a characteristic shallowness distribution. In this study, we introduced fundamental changes to our previous algorithm by using a 3D grid representation of proteins and probes, and the theory of mathematical morphology. We invented an efficient algorithm for calculating deep and shallow pockets (multiscale pockets) simultaneously, using several different sizes of spherical probes (multiscale probes). We implemented our algorithm as a new program, ghecom (grid‐based HECOMi finder). The statistics of calculated pockets for the structural dataset showed that our program had a higher performance of detecting binding pockets, than four other popular pocket‐finding programs proposed previously. The ghecom also calculates the shallowness of binding ligands, R_inaccess (minimum radius of inaccessible spherical probes) that can be obtained from the multiscale molecular volume. We showed that each part of the binding molecule had a bias toward a specific range of shallowness. These findings will be useful for predicting the types of molecules that will be most likely to bind putative binding pockets, as well as the configurations of binding molecules. The program ghecom is available through the Web server ( http://biunit.naist.jp/ghecom ). Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Mapping of ligand‐binding cavities in proteins

The complex interactions between proteins and small organic molecules (ligands) are intensively studied because they play key roles in biological processes and drug activities. Here, we present a novel approach to characterize and map the ligand‐binding cavities of proteins without direct geometric comparison of structures, based on Principal Component Analysis of cavity properties (related mainly to size, polarity, and charge). This approach can provide valuable information on the similarities and dissimilarities, of binding cavities due to mutations, between‐species differences and flexibility upon ligand‐binding. The presented results show that information on ligand‐binding cavity variations can complement information on protein similarity obtained from sequence comparisons. The predictive aspect of the method is exemplified by successful predictions of serine proteases that were not included in the model construction. The presented strategy to compare ligand‐binding cavities of related and unrelated proteins has many potential applications within protein and medicinal chemistry, for example in the characterization and mapping of “orphan structures”, selection of protein structures for docking studies in structure‐based design, and identification of proteins for selectivity screens in drug design programs. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Ligand solvation in molecular docking

Solvation plays an important role in ligand‐protein association and has a strong impact on comparisons of binding energies for dissimilar molecules. When databases of such molecules are screened for complementarity to receptors of known structure, as often occurs in structure‐based inhibitor discovery, failure to consider ligand solvation often leads to putative ligands that are too highly charged or too large. To correct for the different charge states and sizes of the ligands, we calculated electrostatic and non‐polar solvation free energies for molecules in a widely used molecular database, the Available Chemicals Directory (ACD). A modified Born equation treatment was used to calculate the electrostatic component of ligand solvation. The non‐polar component of ligand solvation was calculated based on the surface area of the ligand and parameters derived from the hydration energies of apolar ligands. These solvation energies were subtracted from the ligand‐receptor interaction energies. We tested the usefulness of these corrections by screening the ACD for molecules that complemented three proteins of known structure, using a molecular docking program. Correcting for ligand solvation improved the rankings of known ligands and discriminated against molecules with inappropriate charge states and sizes. Proteins 1999;34:4–16. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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 approaches for identification of conserved/unique binding pockets in the A chain of ricin

MOTIVATION: Specific and sensitive ligand-based protein detection assays that employ antibodies or small molecules such as peptides, aptamers or other small molecules require that the corresponding surface region of the protein be accessible and that there be minimal cross-reactivity with non-target proteins. To reduce the time and cost of laboratory screening efforts for diagnostic reagents, we developed new methods for evaluating and selecting protein surface regions for ligand targeting. RESULTS: We devised combined structure- and sequence-based methods for identifying 3D epitopes and binding pockets on the surface of the A chain of ricin that are conserved with respect to a set of ricin A chains and unique with respect to other proteins. We (1) used structure alignment software to detect structural deviations and extracted from this analysis the residue-residue correspondence, (2) devised a method to compare corresponding residues across sets of ricin structures and structures of closely related proteins, (3) devised a sequence-based approach to determine residue infrequency in local sequence context and (4) modified a pocket-finding algorithm to identify surface crevices in close proximity to residues determined to be conserved/unique based on our structure- and sequence-based methods. In applying this combined informatics approach to ricin A, we identified a conserved/unique pocket in close proximity (but not overlapping) the active site that is suitable for bi-dentate ligand development. These methods are generally applicable to identification of surface epitopes and binding pockets for development of diagnostic reagents, therapeutics and vaccines.     

Detection of pockets on protein surfaces using small and large probe spheres to find putative ligand binding sites

One of the simplest ways to predict ligand binding sites is to identify pocket-shaped regions on the protein surface. Many programs have already been proposed to identify these pocket regions. Examination of their algorithms revealed that a pocket intrinsically has two arbitrary properties, "size" and "depth". We proposed a new definition for pockets using two explicit adjustable parameters that correspond to these two arbitrary properties. A pocket region is defined as a space into which a small probe can enter, but a large probe cannot. The radii of small and large probe spheres are the two parameters that correspond to the "size" and "depth" of the pockets, respectively. These values can be adjusted individual putative ligand molecule. To determine the optimal value of the large probe spheres radius, we generated pockets for thousands of protein structures in the database, using several size of large probe spheres, examined the correspondence of these pockets with known binding site positions. A new measure of shallowness, a minimum inaccessible radius, R(inaccess), indicated that binding sites of coenzymes are very deep, while those for adenine/guanine mononucleotide have only medium shallowness and those for short peptides and oligosaccharides are shallow. The optimal radius of large probe spheres was 3-4 A for the coenzymes, 4 A for adenine/guanine mononucleotides, and 5 A or more for peptides/oligosaccharides. Comparison of our program with two other popular pocket-finding programs showed that our program had a higher performance of detecting binding pockets, although it required more computational time.