Protein–protein interactions: General trends in the relationship between binding affinity and interfacial buried surface area

Protein–protein interactions play key roles in many cellular processes and their affinities and specificities are finely tuned to the functions they perform. Here, we present a study on the relationship between binding affinity and the size and chemical nature of protein–protein interfaces. Our analysis focuses on heterodimers and includes curated structural and thermodynamic data for 113 complexes. We observe a direct correlation between binding affinity and the amount of surface area buried at the interface. For a given amount of surface area buried, the binding affinity spans four orders of magnitude in terms of the dissociation constant (K_d). Across the entire dataset, we observe no obvious relationship between binding affinity and the chemical composition of the interface. We also calculate the free energy per unit surface area buried, or “surface energy density,” of each heterodimer. For interfacial surface areas between 500 and 2000 Ų, the surface energy density decreases as the buried surface area increases. As the buried surface area increases beyond about 2000 Ų, the surface energy density levels off to a constant value. We believe that these analyses and data will be useful for researchers with an interest in understanding, designing or inhibiting protein–protein interfaces.     

Protein‐spanning water networks and implications for prediction of protein–protein interactions mediated through hydrophobic effects

Hydrophobic effects, often conflated with hydrophobic forces, are implicated as major determinants in biological association and self‐assembly processes. Protein–protein interactions involved in signaling pathways in living systems are a prime example where hydrophobic effects have profound implications. In the context of protein–protein interactions, a priori knowledge of relevant binding interfaces (i.e., clusters of residues involved directly with binding interactions) is difficult. In the case of hydrophobically mediated interactions, use of hydropathy‐based methods relying on single residue hydrophobicity properties are routinely and widely used to predict propensities for such residues to be present in hydrophobic interfaces. However, recent studies suggest that consideration of hydrophobicity for single residues on a protein surface require accounting of the local environment dictated by neighboring residues and local water. In this study, we use a method derived from percolation theory to evaluate spanning water networks in the first hydration shells of a series of small proteins. We use residue‐based water density and single‐linkage clustering methods to predict hydrophobic regions of proteins; these regions are putatively involved in binding interactions. We find that this simple method is able to predict with sufficient accuracy and coverage the binding interface residues of a series of proteins. The approach is competitive with automated servers. The results of this study highlight the importance of accounting of local environment in determining the hydrophobic nature of individual residues on protein surfaces. Proteins 2014; 82:3312–3326. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

On the protein–protein diffusional encounter complex

When two proteins diffuse together to form a bound complex, an intermediate is formed at the end‐point of diffusional association which is called the encounter complex. Its characteristics are important in determining association rates, yet its structure cannot be directly observed experimentally. Here, we address the problem of how to construct the ensemble of three‐dimensional structures which constitute the protein–protein diffusional encounter complex using available experimental data describing the dependence of protein association rates on mutation and on solvent ionic strength and viscosity. The magnitude of the association rates is fitted well using a variety of definitions of encounter complexes in which the two proteins are located at up to about 17 Å root‐mean‐squared distance from their relative arrangement in the bound complex. Analysis of the ionic strength dependence of bimolecular association rates shows that this is determined to a greater extent by the (protein charge) – (salt ion) separation distance than by the protein–protein charge separation distance. Consequently, ionic strength dependence of association rates provides little information about the geometry of the encounter complex. On the other hand, experimental data on electrostatic rate enhancement, mutation and viscosity dependence suggest a model of the encounter complex in which the two proteins form a subset of the contacts present in the bound complex and are significantly desolvated. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

PPICurator: A Tool for Extracting Comprehensive Protein–Protein Interaction Information

Protein–protein interaction extraction through biological literature curation is widely employed for proteome analysis. There is a strong need for a tool that can assist researchers in extracting comprehensive PPI information through literature curation, which is critical in research on protein, for example, construction of protein interaction network, identification of protein signaling pathway, and discovery of meaningful protein interaction. However, most of current tools can only extract PPI relations. None of them are capable of extracting other important PPI information, such as interaction directions, effects, and functional annotations. To address these issues, this paper proposes PPICurator, a novel tool for extracting comprehensive PPI information with a variety of logic and syntax features based on a new support vector machine classifier. PPICurator provides a friendly web‐based user interface. It is a platform that automates the extraction of comprehensive PPI information through literature, including PPI relations, as well as their confidential scores, interaction directions, effects, and functional annotations. Thus, PPICurator is more comprehensive than state‐of‐the‐art tools. Moreover, it outperforms state‐of‐the‐art tools in the accuracy of PPI relation extraction measured by F‐score and recall on the widely used open datasets. PPICurator is available at https://ppicurator.hupo.org.cn .     

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.     

Protein–protein alternative binding modes do not overlap

Proteins often bind other proteins in more than one way. Thus alternative binding modes is an essential feature of protein interactions. Such binding modes may be detected by X‐ray crystallography and thus reflected in Protein Data Bank. The alternative binding is often observed not for the protein itself but for its structural homolog. The results of this study based on the analysis of a comprehensive set of co‐crystallized protein–protein complexes show that the alternative binding modes generally do not overlap, but are spatially separated. This effect is based on molecular recognition characteristics of the protein structures. The results are also in excellent agreement with the intermolecular energy funnel size estimates obtained previously by an independent methodology. The results provide an important insight into the principles of protein association, as well as potential guidelines for modeling of protein complexes and the design of protein interfaces.     

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.     

Importance of the interaction protein–protein of the CaM–PDE1A and CaM–MLCK complexes in the development of new anti‐CaM drugs

Protein–protein interactions play central roles in physiological and pathological processes. The bases of the mechanisms of drug action are relevant to the discovery of new therapeutic targets. This work focuses on understanding the interactions in protein–protein–ligands complexes, using proteins calmodulin (CaM), human calcium/calmodulin‐dependent 3′,5′‐cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase 1A active human (PDE1A), and myosin light chain kinase (MLCK) and ligands αII–spectrin peptide (αII–spec), and two inhibitors of CaM (chlorpromazine (CPZ) and malbrancheamide (MBC)). The interaction was monitored with a fluorescent biosensor of CaM (hCaM M124C–mBBr). The results showed changes in the affinity of CPZ and MBC depending on the CaM–protein complex under analysis. For the Ca²⁺–CaM, Ca²⁺–CaM–PDE1A, and Ca²⁺–CaM–MLCK complexes, CPZ apparent dissociation constants (K_ds) were 1.11, 0.28, and 0.55 μM, respectively; and for MBC K_ds were 1.43, 1.10, and 0.61 μM, respectively. In competition experiments the addition of calmodulin binding peptide 1 (αII–spec) to Ca²⁺–hCaM M124C–mBBr quenched the fluorescence (K_d = 2.55 ± 1.75 pM) and the later addition of MBC (up to 16 μM) did not affect the fluorescent signal. Instead, the additions of αII–spec to a preformed Ca²⁺–hCaM M124C–mBBr–MBC complex modified the fluorescent signal. However, MBC was able to displace the PDE1A and MLCK from its complex with Ca²⁺–CaM. In addition, docking studies were performed for all complexes with both ligands showing an excellent correlation with experimental data. These experiments may help to explain why in vivo many CaM drugs target prefer only a subset of the Ca²⁺–CaM regulated proteins and adds to the understanding of molecular interactions between protein complexes and small ligands. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Self‐association of TPR domains: Lessons learned from a designed,consensus‐based TPR oligomer

The tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) motif is a protein–protein interaction module that acts as an organizing centre for complexes regulating a multitude of biological processes. Despite accumulating evidence for the formation of TPR oligomers as an additional level of regulation there is a lack of structural and solution data explaining TPR self‐association. In the present work we characterize the trimeric TPR‐containing protein YbgF, which is linked to the Tol system in Gram‐negative bacteria. By subtracting previously identified TPR consensus residues required for stability of the fold from residues conserved across YbgF homologs, we identified residues involved in oligomerization of the C‐terminal YbgF TPR domain. Crafting these residues, which are located in loop regions between TPR motifs, onto the monomeric consensus TPR protein CTPR3 induced the formation of oligomers. The crystal structure of this engineered oligomer shows an asymmetric trimer where stacking interactions between the introduced tyrosines and displacement of the C‐terminal hydrophilic capping helix, present in most TPR domains, are key to oligomerization. Asymmetric trimerization of the YbgF TPR domain and CTPR3Y3 leads to the formation of higher order oligomers both in the crystal and in solution. However, such open‐ended self‐association does not occur in full‐length YbgF suggesting that the protein's N‐terminal coiled‐coil domain restricts further oligomerization. This interpretation is borne out in experiments where the coiled‐coil domain of YbgF was engineered onto the N‐terminus of CTPR3Y3 and shown to block self‐association beyond trimerization. Our study lays the foundations for understanding the structural basis for TPR domain self‐association and how such self‐association can be regulated in TPR domain‐containing proteins. Proteins 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

Protein–protein structure prediction by scoring molecular dynamics trajectories of putative poses

The prediction of protein–protein interactions and their structural configuration remains a largely unsolved problem. Most of the algorithms aimed at finding the native conformation of a protein complex starting from the structure of its monomers are based on searching the structure corresponding to the global minimum of a suitable scoring function. However, protein complexes are often highly flexible, with mobile side chains and transient contacts due to thermal fluctuations. Flexibility can be neglected if one aims at finding quickly the approximate structure of the native complex, but may play a role in structure refinement, and in discriminating solutions characterized by similar scores. We here benchmark the capability of some state‐of‐the‐art scoring functions (BACH‐SixthSense, PIE/PISA and Rosetta) in discriminating finite‐temperature ensembles of structures corresponding to the native state and to non‐native configurations. We produce the ensembles by running thousands of molecular dynamics simulations in explicit solvent starting from poses generated by rigid docking and optimized in vacuum. We find that while Rosetta outperformed the other two scoring functions in scoring the structures in vacuum, BACH‐SixthSense and PIE/PISA perform better in distinguishing near‐native ensembles of structures generated by molecular dynamics in explicit solvent. Proteins 2016; 84:1312–1320. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

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.     

A simple contact mapping algorithm for identifying potential peptide mimetics in protein–protein interaction partners

A simple, static contact mapping algorithm has been developed as a first step at identifying potential peptide biomimetics from protein interaction partner structure files. This rapid and simple mapping algorithm, “OpenContact” provides screened or parsed protein interaction files based on specified criteria for interatomic separation distances and interatomic potential interactions. The algorithm, which uses all‐atom Amber03 force field models, was blindly tested on several unrelated cases from the literature where potential peptide mimetics have been experimentally developed to varying degrees of success. In all cases, the screening algorithm efficiently predicted proposed or potential peptide biomimetics, or close variations thereof, and provided complete atom‐atom interaction data necessary for further detailed analysis and drug development. In addition, we used the static parsing/mapping method to develop a peptide mimetic to the cancer protein target, epidermal growth factor receptor. In this case, secondary, loop structure for the peptide was indicated from the intra‐protein mapping, and the peptide was subsequently synthesized and shown to exhibit successful binding to the target protein. The case studies, which all involved experimental peptide drug advancement, illustrate many of the challenges associated with the development of peptide biomimetics, in general. Proteins 2014; 82:2253–2262. © 2014 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Linkers in the structural biology of protein–protein interactions

Linkers or spacers are short amino acid sequences created in nature to separate multiple domains in a single protein. Most of them are rigid and function to prohibit unwanted interactions between the discrete domains. However, Gly‐rich linkers are flexible, connecting various domains in a single protein without interfering with the function of each domain. The advent of recombinant DNA technology made it possible to fuse two interacting partners with the introduction of artificial linkers. Often, independent proteins may not exist as stable or structured proteins until they interact with their binding partner, following which they gain stability and the essential structural elements. Gly‐rich linkers have been proven useful for these types of unstable interactions, particularly where the interaction is weak and transient, by creating a covalent link between the proteins to form a stable protein–protein complex. Gly‐rich linkers are also employed to form stable covalently linked dimers, and to connect two independent domains that create a ligand‐binding site or recognition sequence. The lengths of linkers vary from 2 to 31 amino acids, optimized for each condition so that the linker does not impose any constraints on the conformation or interactions of the linked partners. Various structures of covalently linked protein complexes have been described using X‐ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance and cryo‐electron microscopy techniques. In this review, we evaluate several structural studies where linkers have been used to improve protein quality, to produce stable protein–protein complexes, and to obtain protein dimers.     

Reassessing buried surface areas in protein–protein complexes

The buried surface area (BSA), which measures the size of the interface in a protein–protein complex may differ from the accessible surface area (ASA) lost upon association (which we call DSA), if conformation changes take place. To evaluate the DSA, we measure the ASA of the interface atoms in the bound and unbound states of the components of 144 protein–protein complexes taken from the Protein–Protein Interaction Affinity Database of Kastritis et al. (2011). We observe differences exceeding 20%, and a systematic bias in the distribution. On average, the ASA calculated in the bound state of the components is 3.3% greater than in their unbound state, and the BSA, 7% greater than the DSA. The bias is observed even in complexes where the conformation changes are small. An examination of the bound and unbound structures points to a possible origin: local movements optimize contacts with the other component at the cost of internal contacts, and presumably also the binding free energy.     

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.     

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.     

Examining post‐translational modification‐mediated protein–protein interactions using a chemical proteomics approach

Post‐translational modifications (PTM) of proteins can control complex and dynamic cellular processes via regulating interactions between key proteins. To understand these regulatory mechanisms, it is critical that we can profile the PTM‐dependent protein–protein interactions. However, identifying these interactions can be very difficult using available approaches, as PTMs can be dynamic and often mediate relatively weak protein–protein interactions. We have recently developed CLASPI (cross‐linking‐assisted and stable isotope labeling in cell culture‐based protein identification), a chemical proteomics approach to examine protein–protein interactions mediated by methylation in human cell lysates. Here, we report three extensions of the CLASPI approach. First, we show that CLASPI can be used to analyze methylation‐dependent protein–protein interactions in lysates of fission yeast, a genetically tractable model organism. For these studies, we examined trimethylated histone H3 lysine‐9 (H3K9Me₃)‐dependent protein–protein interactions. Second, we demonstrate that CLASPI can be used to examine phosphorylation‐dependent protein–protein interactions. In particular, we profile proteins recognizing phosphorylated histone H3 threonine‐3 (H3T3‐Phos), a mitotic histone “mark” appearing exclusively during cell division. Our approach identified survivin, the only known H3T3‐Phos‐binding protein, as well as other proteins, such as MCAK and KIF2A, that are likely to be involved in weak but selective interactions with this histone phosphorylation “mark”. Finally, we demonstrate that the CLASPI approach can be used to study the interplay between histone H3T3‐Phos and trimethylation on the adjacent residue lysine 4 (H3K4Me₃). Together, our findings indicate the CLASPI approach can be broadly applied to profile protein–protein interactions mediated by PTMs.