Three enhancements to the inference of statistical protein‐DNA potentials

The energetics of protein‐DNA interactions are often modeled using so‐called statistical potentials, that is, energy models derived from the atomic structures of protein‐DNA complexes. Many statistical protein‐DNA potentials based on differing theoretical assumptions have been investigated, but little attention has been paid to the types of data and the parameter estimation process used in deriving the statistical potentials. We describe three enhancements to statistical potential inference that significantly improve the accuracy of predicted protein‐DNA interactions: (i) incorporation of binding energy data of protein‐DNA complexes, in conjunction with their X‐ray crystal structures, (ii) use of spatially‐aware parameter fitting, and (iii) use of ensemble‐based parameter fitting. We apply these enhancements to three widely‐used statistical potentials and use the resulting enhanced potentials in a structure‐based prediction of the DNA binding sites of proteins. These enhancements are directly applicable to all statistical potentials used in protein‐DNA modeling, and we show that they can improve the accuracy of predicted DNA binding sites by up to 21%. Proteins 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Optimizing the affinity and specificity of ligand binding with the inclusion of solvation effect

Solvation effect is an important factor for protein–ligand binding in aqueous water. Previous scoring function of protein–ligand interactions rarely incorporates the solvation model into the quantification of protein–ligand interactions, mainly due to the immense computational cost, especially in the structure‐based virtual screening, and nontransferable application of independently optimized atomic solvation parameters. In order to overcome these barriers, we effectively combine knowledge‐based atom–pair potentials and the atomic solvation energy of charge‐independent implicit solvent model in the optimization of binding affinity and specificity. The resulting scoring functions with optimized atomic solvation parameters is named as specificity and affinity with solvation effect (SPA‐SE). The performance of SPA‐SE is evaluated and compared to 20 other scoring functions, as well as SPA. The comparative results show that SPA‐SE outperforms all other scoring functions in binding affinity prediction and “native” pose identification. Our optimization validates that solvation effect is an important regulator to the stability and specificity of protein–ligand binding. The development strategy of SPA‐SE sets an example for other scoring function to account for the solvation effect in biomolecular recognitions. Proteins 2015; 83:1632–1642. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

RBRDetector: Improved prediction of binding residues on RNA‐binding protein structures using complementary feature‐ and template‐based strategies

Computational prediction of RNA‐binding residues is helpful in uncovering the mechanisms underlying protein‐RNA interactions. Traditional algorithms individually applied feature‐ or template‐based prediction strategy to recognize these crucial residues, which could restrict their predictive power. To improve RNA‐binding residue prediction, herein we propose the first integrative algorithm termed RBRDetector (RNA‐Binding Residue Detector) by combining these two strategies. We developed a feature‐based approach that is an ensemble learning predictor comprising multiple structure‐based classifiers, in which well‐defined evolutionary and structural features in conjunction with sequential or structural microenvironment were used as the inputs of support vector machines. Meanwhile, we constructed a template‐based predictor to recognize the putative RNA‐binding regions by structurally aligning the query protein to the RNA‐binding proteins with known structures. The final RBRDetector algorithm is an ingenious fusion of our feature‐ and template‐based approaches based on a piecewise function. By validating our predictors with diverse types of structural data, including bound and unbound structures, native and simulated structures, and protein structures binding to different RNA functional groups, we consistently demonstrated that RBRDetector not only had clear advantages over its component methods, but also significantly outperformed the current state‐of‐the‐art algorithms. Nevertheless, the major limitation of our algorithm is that it performed relatively well on DNA‐binding proteins and thus incorrectly predicted the DNA‐binding regions as RNA‐binding interfaces. Finally, we implemented the RBRDetector algorithm as a user‐friendly web server, which is freely accessible at http://ibi.hzau.edu.cn/rbrdetector . Proteins 2014; 82:2455–2471. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, 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.     

Exploring additivity effects of double mutations on the binding affinity of protein‐protein complexes

Additivity in binding affinity of protein‐protein complexes refers to the change in free energy of binding (ΔΔG_bind) for double (or multiple) mutations which is approximately equal to the sum of their corresponding single mutation ΔΔG_bind values. In this study, we have explored the additivity effect of double mutants, which shows a linear relationship between the binding affinity of double and sum of single mutants with a correlation of 0.90. However, the comparison of ΔΔG_bind values showed a mean absolute deviation of 0.86 kcal/mol, and 25.6% of the double mutants show a deviation of more than 1 kcal/mol, which are identified as non‐additive. The additivity effects have been analyzed based on the influence of structural features such as accessible surface area, long range order, binding propensity change, surrounding hydrophobicity, flexibility, atomic contacts between the mutations and distance between the 2 mutations. We found that non‐additive mutations tend to be closer to each other and have more contacts. We have also used machine learning methods to discriminate additive and non‐additive mutations using structure‐based features, which showed the accuracies in the range of 0.77–0.92 for protein‐protein complexes belonging to different functions. Further, we have compared the additivity effects of protein stability along with binding affinity and explored the similarities and differences between them. The results obtained in this study provide insights into the effects of various structural features on binding affinity of double mutants, and will aid the development of accurate methods to predict the binding affinity of double mutants.     

Genome‐wide computational determination of the human metalloproteome

Accurate prediction of protein function in humans is important for understanding biological processes at the molecular level in biomedicine and drug design. Over a third of proteins are commonly held to bind metal, and ～10% of human proteins, to bind zinc. Therefore, an initial step in protein function prediction frequently involves predicting metal ion binding. In recent years, methods have been developed to predict a set of residues in 3D space forming the metal‐ion binding site, often with a high degree of accuracy. Here, using extensions of these methods, we provide an extensive list of human proteins and their putative metal ion binding site residues, using translated gene sequences derived from the complete, resolved human genome. Under conditions of ～90% selectivity, over 900 new human putative metal ion binding proteins are identified. A statistical analysis of resolved metal ion binding sites in the human metalloproteome is furnished and the importance of remote homology analysis is demonstrated. As an example, a novel metal‐ion binding site involving a complex of a botulinum substrate with its inhibitor is presented. On the basis of the location of the predicted site and the interactions of the contacting residues at the complex interface, we postulate that metal ion binding in this region could influence complex formation and, consequently, the functioning of the protein. Thus, this work provides testable hypotheses about novel functions of known proteins. Proteins 2015; 83:931–939. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking

Proteins are essential elements of biological systems, and their function typically relies on their ability to successfully bind to specific partners. Recently, an emphasis of study into protein interactions has been on hot spots, or residues in the binding interface that make a significant contribution to the binding energetics. In this study, we investigate how conservation of hot spots can be used to guide docking prediction. We show that the use of evolutionary data combined with hot spot prediction highlights near‐native structures across a range of benchmark examples. Our approach explores various strategies for using hot spots and evolutionary data to score protein complexes, using both absolute and chemical definitions of conservation along with refinements to these strategies that look at windowed conservation and filtering to ensure a minimum number of hot spots in each binding partner. Finally, structure‐based models of orthologs were generated for comparison with sequence‐based scoring. Using two data sets of 22 and 85 examples, a high rate of top 10 and top 1 predictions are observed, with up to 82% of examples returning a top 10 hit and 35% returning top 1 hit depending on the data set and strategy applied; upon inclusion of the native structure among the decoys, up to 55% of examples yielded a top 1 hit. The 20 common examples between data sets show that more carefully curated interolog data yields better predictions, particularly in achieving top 1 hits. Proteins 2015; 83:1940–1946. © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Surface shapes and surrounding environment analysis of single‐ and double‐stranded DNA‐binding proteins in protein‐DNA interface

Protein‐DNA bindings are critical to many biological processes. However, the structural mechanisms underlying these interactions are not fully understood. Here, we analyzed the residues shape (peak, flat, or valley) and the surrounding environment of double‐stranded DNA‐binding proteins (DSBs) and single‐stranded DNA‐binding proteins (SSBs) in protein‐DNA interfaces. In the results, we found that the interface shapes, hydrogen bonds, and the surrounding environment present significant differences between the two kinds of proteins. Built on the investigation results, we constructed a random forest (RF) classifier to distinguish DSBs and SSBs with satisfying performance. In conclusion, we present a novel methodology to characterize protein interfaces, which will deepen our understanding of the specificity of proteins binding to ssDNA (single‐stranded DNA) or dsDNA (double‐stranded DNA). Proteins 2016; 84:979–989. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, 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.     

The dataset for protein–RNA binding affinity

We have developed a non‐redundant protein–RNA binding benchmark dataset derived from the available protein–RNA structures in the Protein Database Bank. It consists of 73 complexes with measured binding affinity. The experimental conditions (pH and temperature) for binding affinity measurements are also listed in our dataset. This binding affinity dataset can be used to compare and develop protein–RNA scoring functions. The predicted binding free energy of the 73 complexes from three available scoring functions for protein–RNA docking has a low correlation with the binding Gibbs free energy calculated from K_d. © 2013 The Protein Society     

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

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

An application of CIFAP for predicting the binding affinity of Chk1 inhibitors derived from 2‐aminothiazole‐4‐carboxamide

Investigation of protein‐ligand interactions obtained from experiments has a crucial part in the design of newly discovered and effective drugs. Analyzing the data extracted from known interactions could help scientists to predict the binding affinities of promising ligands before conducting experiments. The objective of this study is to advance the CIFAP (compressed images for affinity prediction) method, which is relevant to a protein‐ligand model, identifying 2D electrostatic potential images by separating the binding site of protein‐ligand complexes and using the images for predicting the computational affinity information represented by pIC₅₀ values. The CIFAP method has 2 phases, namely, data modeling and prediction. In data modeling phase, the separated 3D structure of the binding pocket with the ligand inside is fitted into an electrostatic potential grid box, which is then compressed through 3 orthogonal directions into three 2D images for each protein‐ligand complex. Sequential floating forward selection technique is performed for acquiring prediction patterns from the images. In the prediction phase, support vector regression (SVR) and partial least squares regression are used for testing the quality of the CIFAP method for predicting the binding affinity of 45 CHK1 inhibitors derived from 2‐aminothiazole‐4‐carboxamide. The results show that the CIFAP method using both support vector regression and partial least squares regression is very effective for predicting the binding affinities of CHK1‐ligand complexes with low‐error values and high correlation. As a future work, the results could be improved by working on the pose of the ligands inside the grid.     

Interplay between binding affinity and kinetics in protein–protein interactions

To clarify the interplay between the binding affinity and kinetics of protein–protein interactions, and the possible role of intrinsically disordered proteins in such interactions, molecular simulations were carried out on 20 protein complexes. With bias potential and reweighting techniques, the free energy profiles were obtained under physiological affinities, which showed that the bound‐state valley is deep with a barrier height of 12 ? 33 RT. From the dependence of the affinity on interface interactions, the entropic contribution to the binding affinity is approximated to be proportional to the interface area. The extracted dissociation rates based on the Arrhenius law correlate reasonably well with the experimental values (Pearson correlation coefficient R = 0.79). For each protein complex, a linear free energy relationship between binding affinity and the dissociation rate was confirmed, but the distribution of the slopes for intrinsically disordered proteins showed no essential difference with that observed for ordered proteins. A comparison with protein folding was also performed. Proteins 2016; 84:920–933. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Identification of centromeric and telomeric DNA‐binding proteins in rice

Centromeres and telomeres are DNA/protein complexes and essential functional components of eukaryotic chromosomes. Previous studies have shown that rice centromeres and telomeres are occupied by CentO (rice centromere satellite DNA) satellite and G‐rich telomere repeats, respectively. However, the protein components are not fully understood. DNA‐binding proteins associated with centromeric or telomeric DNAs will most likely be important for the understanding of centromere and telomere structure and functions. To capture DNA‐specific binding proteins, affinity pull‐down technique was applied in this study to isolate rice centromeric and telomeric DNA‐binding proteins. Fifty‐five proteins were identified for their binding affinity to rice CentO repeat, and 80 proteins were identified for their binding to telomere repeat. One CentO‐binding protein, Os02g0288200, was demonstrated to bind to CentO specifically by in vitro assay. A conserved domain, DUF573 with unknown functions was identified in this protein, and proven to be responsible for the specific binding to CentO in vitro. Four proteins identified as telomere DNA‐binding proteins in this study were reported by different groups previously. These results demonstrate that DNA affinity pull‐down technique is effective in the isolation of sequence‐specific binding proteins and will be applicable in future studies of centromere and telomere proteins.     

Crystal structure of the protein At3g01520, a eukaryotic universal stress protein‐like protein from arabidopsis thaliana in complex with AMP

Members of the universal stress protein (USP) family are conserved in a phylogenetically diverse range of prokaryotes, fungi, protists, and plants and confer abilities to respond to a wide range of environmental stresses. Arabidopsis thaliana contains 44 USP domain‐containing proteins, and USP domain is found either in a small protein with unknown physiological function or in an N‐terminal portion of a multi‐domain protein, usually a protein kinase. Here, we report the first crystal structure of a eukaryotic USP‐like protein encoded from the gene At3g01520. The crystal structure of the protein At3g01520 was determined by the single‐wavelength anomalous dispersion method and refined to an R factor of 21.8% (R_free = 26.1%) at 2.5 Å resolution. The crystal structure includes three At3g01520 protein dimers with one AMP molecule bound to each protomer, comprising a Rossmann‐like α/β overall fold. The bound AMP and conservation of residues in the ATP‐binding loop suggest that the protein At3g01520 also belongs to the ATP‐binding USP subfamily members. Proteins 2015; 83:1368–1373. © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Chemical synthesis and evaluation of a backbone‐cyclized minimized 2‐helix Z‐domain

The Z‐molecule is a small, engineered IgG‐binding affinity protein derived from the immunoglobulin‐binding domain B of Staphylococcus aureus protein A. The Z‐domain consists of 58 amino acids forming a well‐defined antiparallel three‐helix structure. Two of the three helices are involved in ligand binding, whereas the third helix provides structural support to the three‐helix bundle. The small size and the stable three‐helix structure are two attractive properties comprised in the Z‐domain, but a further reduction in size of the protein is valuable for several reasons. Reduction in size facilitates synthetic production of any protein‐based molecule, which is beneficial from an economical viewpoint. In addition, a smaller protein is easier to manipulate through chemical modifications. By omitting the third stabilizing helix from the Z‐domain and joining the N‐ and C‐termini by a native peptide bond, the affinity protein obtains the advantageous properties of a smaller scaffold and in addition becomes resistant to exoproteases. We here demonstrate the synthesis and evaluation of a novel cyclic two‐helix Z‐domain. The molecule has retained affinity for its target protein, is resistant to heat treatment, and lacks both N‐ and C‐termini. Copyright © 2011 European Peptide Society and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.