Great interactions: How binding incorrect partners can teach us about protein recognition and function

Protein–protein interactions play a key part in most biological processes and understanding their mechanism is a fundamental problem leading to numerous practical applications. The prediction of protein binding sites in particular is of paramount importance since proteins now represent a major class of therapeutic targets. Amongst others methods, docking simulations between two proteins known to interact can be a useful tool for the prediction of likely binding patches on a protein surface. From the analysis of the protein interfaces generated by a massive cross‐docking experiment using the 168 proteins of the Docking Benchmark 2.0, where all possible protein pairs, and not only experimental ones, have been docked together, we show that it is also possible to predict a protein's binding residues without having any prior knowledge regarding its potential interaction partners. Evaluating the performance of cross‐docking predictions using the area under the specificity‐sensitivity ROC curve (AUC) leads to an AUC value of 0.77 for the complete benchmark (compared to the 0.5 AUC value obtained for random predictions). Furthermore, a new clustering analysis performed on the binding patches that are scattered on the protein surface show that their distribution and growth will depend on the protein's functional group. Finally, in several cases, the binding‐site predictions resulting from the cross‐docking simulations will lead to the identification of an alternate interface, which corresponds to the interaction with a biomolecular partner that is not included in the original benchmark. Proteins 2016; 84:1408–1421. © 2016 The Authors Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Predicting permanent and transient protein–protein interfaces

Protein–protein interactions (PPIs) are involved in diverse functions in a cell. To optimize functional roles of interactions, proteins interact with a spectrum of binding affinities. Interactions are conventionally classified into permanent and transient, where the former denotes tight binding between proteins that result in strong complexes, whereas the latter compose of relatively weak interactions that can dissociate after binding to regulate functional activity at specific time point. Knowing the type of interactions has significant implications for understanding the nature and function of PPIs. In this study, we constructed amino acid substitution models that capture mutation patterns at permanent and transient type of protein interfaces, which were found to be different with statistical significance. Using the substitution models, we developed a novel computational method that predicts permanent and transient protein binding interfaces (PBIs) in protein surfaces. Without knowledge of the interacting partner, the method uses a single query protein structure and a multiple sequence alignment of the sequence family. Using a large dataset of permanent and transient proteins, we show that our method, BindML+, performs very well in protein interface classification. A very high area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.957 was observed when predicted protein binding sites were classified. Remarkably, near prefect accuracy was achieved with an AUC of 0.991 when actual binding sites were classified. The developed method will be also useful for protein design of permanent and transient PBIs. © Proteins 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Calorimetric and spectroscopic investigation of the interaction between the C‐terminal domain of Enzyme I and its ligands

Enzyme I initiates a series of phosphotransfer reactions during sugar uptake in the bacterial phosphotransferase system. Here, we have isolated a stable recombinant C-terminal domain of Enzyme I (EIC) of Escherichia coli and characterized its interaction with the N-terminal domain of Enzyme I (EIN) and also with various ligands. EIC can phosphorylate EIN, but their binding is transient regardless of the presence of phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP). Circular dichroism and NMR indicate that ligand binding to EIC induces changes near aromatic groups but not in the secondary structure of EIC. Binding of PEP to EIC is an endothermic reaction with the equilibrium dissociation constant (K_D) of 0.28 mM, whereas binding of the inhibitor oxalate is an exothermic reaction with K_D of 0.66 mM from calorimetry. The binding thermodynamics of EIC and PEP compared to that of Enzyme I (EI) and PEP reveals that domain–domain motion in EI can contribute as large as ∼−3.2 kcal/mol toward PEP binding.     

Amino acid substitutions at protein–protein interfaces that modulate the oligomeric state

Despite similarities in their sequence and structure, there are a number of homologous proteins that adopt various oligomeric states. Comparisons of these homologous protein pairs, in terms of residue substitutions at the protein–protein interfaces, have provided fundamental characteristics that describe how proteins interact with each other. We have prepared a dataset composed of pairs of related proteins with different homo‐oligomeric states. Using the protein complexes, the interface residues were identified, and using structural alignments, the shadow‐interface residues have been defined as the surface residues that align with the interface residues. Subsequently, we investigated residue substitutions between the interfaces and the shadow interfaces. Based on the degree of the contributions to the interactions, the aligned sites of the interfaces and shadow interfaces were divided into primary and secondary sites; the primary sites are the focus of this work. The primary sites were further classified into two groups (i.e. exposed and buried) based on the degree to which the residue is buried within the shadow interfaces. Using these classifications, two simple mechanisms that mediate the oligomeric states were identified. In the primary‐exposed sites, the residues on the shadow interfaces are replaced by more hydrophobic or aromatic residues, which are physicochemically favored at protein–protein interfaces. In the primary‐buried sites, the residues on the shadow interfaces are replaced by larger residues that protrude into other proteins. These simple rules are satisfied in 23 out of 25 Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) families with a different‐oligomeric‐state pair, and thus represent a basic strategy for modulating protein associations and dissociations. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Architectures and functional coverage of protein-protein interfaces

The diverse range of cellular functions is performed by a limited number of protein folds existing in nature. One may similarly expect that cellular functional diversity would be covered by a limited number of protein-protein interface architectures. Here, we present 8205 interface clusters, each representing a unique interface architecture. This data set of protein-protein interfaces is analyzed and compared with older data sets. We observe that the number of both biological and crystal interfaces increases significantly compared to the number of Protein Data Bank entries. Furthermore, we find that the number of distinct interface architectures grows at a much faster rate than the number of folds and is yet to level off. We further analyze the growth trend of the functional coverage by constructing functional interaction networks from interfaces. The functional coverage is also found to steadily increase. Interestingly, we also observe that despite the diversity of interface architectures, some are more favorable and frequently used, and of particular interest, are the ones that are also preferred in single chains.     

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.     

A discriminative approach for identifying domain–domain interactions from protein–protein interactions

Protein domains are functional and structural units of proteins. Therefore, identification of domain–domain interactions (DDIs) can provide insight into the biological functions of proteins. In this article, we propose a novel discriminative approach for predicting DDIs based on both protein–protein interactions (PPIs) and the derived information of non‐PPIs. We make a threefold contribution to the work in this area. First, we take into account non‐PPIs explicitly and treat the domain combinations that can discriminate PPIs from non‐PPIs as putative DDIs. Second, DDI identification is formalized as a feature selection problem, in which it tries to find out a minimum set of informative features (i.e., putative DDIs) that discriminate PPIs from non‐PPIs, which is plausible in biology and is able to predict DDIs in a systematic and accurate manner. Third, multidomain combinations including two‐domain combinations are taken into account in the proposed method, where multidomain cooperations may help proteins to interact with each other. Numerical results on several DDI prediction benchmark data sets show that the proposed discriminative method performs comparably well with other top algorithms with respect to overall performance, and outperforms other methods in terms of precision. The PPI data sets used for prediction of DDIs and prediction results can be found at http://csb.shu.edu.cn/dipd . Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Inferring the microscopic surface energy of protein–protein interfaces from mutation data

Mutations at protein–protein recognition sites alter binding strength by altering the chemical nature of the interacting surfaces. We present a simple surface energy model, parameterized with empirical values, yielding mean energies of ?48 cal mol^?1 Å^?2 for interactions between hydrophobic surfaces, ?51 to ?80 cal mol^?1 Å^?2 for surfaces of complementary charge, and 66–83 cal mol^?1 Å^?2 for electrostatically repelling surfaces, relative to the aqueous phase. This places the mean energy of hydrophobic surface burial at ?24 cal mol^?1 Å^?2. Despite neglecting configurational entropy and intramolecular changes, the model correlates with empirical binding free energies of a functionally diverse set of rigid‐body interactions (r = 0.66). When used to rerank docking poses, it can place near‐native solutions in the top 10 for 37% of the complexes evaluated, and 82% in the top 100. The method shows that hydrophobic burial is the driving force for protein association, accounting for 50–95% of the cohesive energy. The model is available open‐source from http://life.bsc.es/pid/web/surface_energy/ and via the CCharpPPI web server http://life.bsc.es/pid/ccharppi/ . Proteins 2015; 83:640–650. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

New and old roles of the double-stranded RNA-binding domain

RNA-binding proteins can strongly regulate and influence the cellular function and fate of an RNA molecule. Of the many described nucleic acid-binding domains, the double-stranded RNA-binding domain (dsRBD) is a highly specialized example found in a wide variety of proteins with diverse cellular functions. Mostly present in multiple copies and highly homologous to one another, the individual functional specificity of dsRBDs is now becoming apparent. Here we review recent evidence showing that single dsRBDs within individual proteins are capable of distinct in vivo functions. Not only does this enable dsRBD-containing proteins to increase their functional diversity but it also reveals novel and unexpected roles that dsRBDs can perform.     

Computational design of second‐site suppressor mutations at protein–protein interfaces

The importance of a protein–protein interaction to a signaling pathway can be established by showing that amino acid mutations that weaken the interaction disrupt signaling, and that additional mutations that rescue the interaction recover signaling. Identifying rescue mutations, often referred to as second‐site suppressor mutations, controls against scenarios in which the initial deleterious mutation inactivates the protein or disrupts alternative protein–protein interactions. Here, we test a structure‐based protocol for identifying second‐site suppressor mutations that is based on a strategy previously described by Kortemme and Baker. The molecular modeling software Rosetta is used to scan an interface for point mutations that are predicted to weaken binding but can be rescued by mutations on the partner protein. The protocol typically identifies three types of specificity switches: knob‐in‐to‐hole redesigns, switching hydrophobic interactions to hydrogen bond interactions, and replacing polar interactions with nonpolar interactions. Computational predictions were tested with two separate protein complexes; the G‐protein Gα_i1 bound to the RGS14 GoLoco motif, and UbcH7 bound to the ubiquitin ligase E6AP. Eight designs were experimentally tested. Swapping a buried hydrophobic residue with a polar residue dramatically weakened binding affinities. In none of these cases were we able to identify compensating mutations that returned binding to wild‐type affinity, highlighting the challenges inherent in designing buried hydrogen bond networks. The strongest specificity switches were a knob‐in‐to‐hole design (20‐fold) and the replacement of a charge–charge interaction with nonpolar interactions (55‐fold). In two cases, specificity was further tuned by including mutations distant from the initial design. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Protein–protein interactions leave evolutionary footprints: High molecular coevolution at the core of interfaces

Protein–protein interactions are essential to all aspects of life. Specific interactions result from evolutionary pressure at the interacting interfaces of partner proteins. However, evolutionary pressure is not homogeneous within the interface: for instance, each residue does not contribute equally to the binding energy of the complex. To understand functional differences between residues within the interface, we analyzed their properties in the core and rim regions. Here, we characterized protein interfaces with two evolutionary measures, conservation and coevolution, using a comprehensive dataset of 896 protein complexes. These scores can detect different selection pressures at a given position in a multiple sequence alignment. We also analyzed how the number of interactions in which a residue is involved influences those evolutionary signals. We found that the coevolutionary signal is higher in the interface core than in the interface rim region. Additionally, the difference in coevolution between core and rim regions is comparable to the known difference in conservation between those regions. Considering proteins with multiple interactions, we found that conservation and coevolution increase with the number of different interfaces in which a residue is involved, suggesting that more constraints (i.e., a residue that must satisfy a greater number of interactions) allow fewer sequence changes at those positions, resulting in higher conservation and coevolution values. These findings shed light on the evolution of protein interfaces and provide information useful for identifying protein interfaces and predicting protein–protein interactions.     

Analysis of protein structures reveals regions of rare backbone conformation at functional sites

Regions of rare conformation were located in 300 protein crystal structures representing seven major protein folds. A distance matrix algorithm was used to search rapidly for 9-residue fragments of rare backbone conformation using a comparison to a relational database of encoded fragments derived from the database of nonredundant structures. Rare fragments were found in 61% of the analyzed protein structures. Detailed analysis was performed for 78 proteins of different folds. The rare fragments were located near functional sites in 72% of the protein structures. The rare fragments often formed parts of ligand-binding sites (59%), protein-protein interfaces (8%), and domain-domain contacts (5%). Of the remaining structures, 5% had a high average B-factor or high local B-factors. Statistical analysis suggests that the association between ligands and rare regions does not occur by chance alone. The present study is likely to underestimate the number of functional sites, because not all analyzed protein structures contained a ligand. The results suggest that rapid searches for regions with rare local backbone conformations can assist in prediction of functional sites in novel proteins.     

Weak conservation of structural features in the interfaces of homologous transient protein–protein complexes

Residue types at the interface of protein–protein complexes (PPCs) are known to be reasonably well conserved. However, we show, using a dataset of known 3‐D structures of homologous transient PPCs, that the 3‐D location of interfacial residues and their interaction patterns are only moderately and poorly conserved, respectively. Another surprising observation is that a residue at the interface that is conserved is not necessarily in the interface in the homolog. Such differences in homologous complexes are manifested by substitution of the residues that are spatially proximal to the conserved residue and structural differences at the interfaces as well as differences in spatial orientations of the interacting proteins. Conservation of interface location and the interaction pattern at the core of the interfaces is higher than at the periphery of the interface patch. Extents of variability of various structural features reported here for homologous transient PPCs are higher than the variation in homologous permanent homomers. Our findings suggest that straightforward extrapolation of interfacial nature and inter‐residue interaction patterns from template to target could lead to serious errors in the modeled complex structure. Understanding the evolution of interfaces provides insights to improve comparative modeling of PPC structures.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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/.     

Delineation of key XRCC4/Ligase IV interfaces for targeted disruption of non‐homologous end joining DNA repair

Efficient DNA repair mechanisms frequently limit the effectiveness of chemotherapeutic agents that act through DNA damaging mechanisms. Consequently, proteins involved in DNA repair have increasingly become attractive targets of high‐throughput screening initiatives to identify modulators of these pathways. Disruption of the XRCC4‐Ligase IV interaction provides a novel means to efficiently halt repair of mammalian DNA double strand break repair; however; the extreme affinity of these proteins presents a major obstacle for drug discovery. A better understanding of the interaction surfaces is needed to provide a more specific target for inhibitor studies. To clearly define key interface(s) of Ligase IV necessary for interaction with XRCC4, we developed a competitive displacement assay using ESI‐MS/MS and determined the minimal inhibitory fragment of the XRCC4‐interacting region (XIR) capable of disrupting a complex of XRCC4/XIR. Disruption of a single helix (helix 2) within the helix‐loop‐helix clamp of Ligase IV was sufficient to displace XIR from a preformed complex. Dose‐dependent response curves for the disruption of the complex by either helix 2 or helix‐loop‐helix fragments revealed that potency of inhibition was greater for the larger helix‐loop‐helix peptide. Our results suggest a susceptibility to inhibition at the interface of helix 2 and future studies would benefit from targeting this surface of Ligase IV to identify modulators that disrupt its interaction with XRCC4. Furthermore, helix 1 and loop regions of the helix‐loop‐helix clamp provide secondary target surfaces to identify adjuvant compounds that could be used in combination to more efficiently inhibit XRCC4/Ligase IV complex formation and DNA repair. Proteins 2014; 82:187–194. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.