Predicting the Effect of Mutations on Protein-Protein Binding Interactions through Structure-Based Interface Profiles

The formation of protein-protein complexes is essential for proteins to perform their physiological functions in the cell. Mutations that prevent the proper formation of the correct complexes can have serious consequences for the associated cellular processes. Since experimental determination of protein-protein binding affinity remains difficult when performed on a large scale, computational methods for predicting the consequences of mutations on binding affinity are highly desirable. We show that a scoring function based on interface structure profiles collected from analogous protein-protein interactions in the PDB is a powerful predictor of protein binding affinity changes upon mutation. As a standalone feature, the differences between the interface profile score of the mutant and wild-type proteins has an accuracy equivalent to the best all-atom potentials, despite being two orders of magnitude faster once the profile has been constructed. Due to its unique sensitivity in collecting the evolutionary profiles of analogous binding interactions and the high speed of calculation, the interface profile score has additional advantages as a complementary feature to combine with physics-based potentials for improving the accuracy of composite scoring approaches. By incorporating the sequence-derived and residue-level coarse-grained potentials with the interface structure profile score, a composite model was constructed through the random forest training, which generates a Pearson correlation coefficient >0.8 between the predicted and observed binding free-energy changes upon mutation. This accuracy is comparable to, or outperforms in most cases, the current best methods, but does not require high-resolution full-atomic models of the mutant structures. The binding interface profiling approach should find useful application in human-disease mutation recognition and protein interface design studies.

[1]  A. D. McLachlan,et al.  Profile analysis: detection of distantly related proteins. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  F. Richards,et al.  The crystal structure of a mutant protein with altered but improved hydrophobic core packing. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces , 1994, Biopolymers.

[4]  M. Cargill Characterization of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in coding regions of human genes , 1999, Nature Genetics.

[5]  E. Freire,et al.  Direct measurement of protein binding energetics by isothermal titration calorimetry. , 2001, Current opinion in structural biology.

[6]  M. Daly,et al.  A map of human genome sequence variation containing 1.42 million single nucleotide polymorphisms , 2001, Nature.

[7]  Christopher T. Saunders,et al.  Evaluation of structural and evolutionary contributions to deleterious mutation prediction. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  L. Serrano,et al.  Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Computational design of protein-protein interactions. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[10]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  A physical reference state unifies the structure‐derived potential of mean force for protein folding and binding , 2004, Proteins.

[11]  H. Wolfson,et al.  A new, structurally nonredundant, diverse data set of protein–protein interfaces and its implications , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[12]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality , 2004, Proteins.

[13]  P. Chakrabarti,et al.  Conservation and relative importance of residues across protein-protein interfaces , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  François Stricher,et al.  The FoldX web server: an online force field , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[15]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  SiteEngines: recognition and comparison of binding sites and protein–protein interfaces , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[16]  L. Serrano,et al.  Prediction of water and metal binding sites and their affinities by using the Fold-X force field. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  PRISM: protein interactions by structural matching , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[18]  Ying Gao,et al.  DOCKGROUND protein-protein docking decoy set , 2008, Bioinform..

[19]  L. A. Clark,et al.  A knowledge‐based forcefield for protein–protein interface design , 2007, Proteins.

[20]  Elisabeth L. Humphris,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interface sequence diversity using flexible backbone computational protein design. , 2008, Structure.

[21]  L. Revell,et al.  Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. , 2008, Systematic biology.

[22]  András Fiser,et al.  New statistical potential for quality assessment of protein models and a survey of energy functions , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

[23]  Yang Zhang,et al.  MM-align: a quick algorithm for aligning multiple-chain protein complex structures using iterative dynamic programming , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[24]  Julia M. Shifman,et al.  Computational Design of Protein– Protein Interactions , 2009 .

[25]  B. L. de Groot,et al.  Predicting free energy changes using structural ensembles. , 2009, Nature methods.

[26]  Michal Linial,et al.  Exposing the co-adaptive potential of protein-protein interfaces through computational sequence design , 2010, Bioinform..

[27]  Yang Zhang,et al.  How significant is a protein structure similarity with TM-score = 0.5? , 2010, Bioinform..

[28]  D. Baker,et al.  High Resolution Mapping of Protein Sequence–Function Relationships , 2010, Nature Methods.

[29]  Ron Elber,et al.  PIE—Efficient filters and coarse grained potentials for unbound protein–protein docking , 2010, Proteins.

[30]  E. Levy A simple definition of structural regions in proteins and its use in analyzing interface evolution. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[31]  J. Skolnick,et al.  Structural space of protein–protein interfaces is degenerate, close to complete, and highly connected , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  Shide Liang,et al.  Computational Design of Protein Interfaces with Receptor Flexibility , 2010 .

[33]  D. Baker,et al.  The structural and energetic basis for high selectivity in a high-affinity protein-protein interaction , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  iAlign: a method for the structural comparison of protein-protein interfaces , 2010, Bioinform..

[35]  Christopher A. Brown,et al.  Validation of Coevolving Residue Algorithms via Pipeline Sensitivity Analysis: ELSC and OMES and ZNMI, Oh My! , 2010, PloS one.

[36]  Steven M. Lewis,et al.  Anchored Design of Protein-Protein Interfaces , 2011, PloS one.

[37]  S. Lovell,et al.  Characterization of Protein-Protein Interaction Interfaces from a Single Species , 2011, PloS one.

[38]  D. Baker,et al.  Restricted sidechain plasticity in the structures of native proteins and complexes , 2011, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[39]  L. Longo,et al.  Experimental support for the foldability–function tradeoff hypothesis: Segregation of the folding nucleus and functional regions in fibroblast growth factor‐1 , 2012, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[40]  Juan Fernández-Recio,et al.  SKEMPI: a Structural Kinetic and Energetic database of Mutant Protein Interactions and its use in empirical models , 2012, Bioinform..

[41]  B. Kuhlman,et al.  Computational protein design with explicit consideration of surface hydrophobic patches , 2012, Proteins.

[42]  Shuxing Zhang,et al.  Computational prediction of protein hot spot residues. , 2012, Current pharmaceutical design.

[43]  J. Morrow,et al.  Computational Prediction of Protein Hot Spot Residues , 2012 .

[44]  Guilhem Faure,et al.  Versatility and Invariance in the Evolution of Homologous Heteromeric Interfaces , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[45]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  A Strategy Based on Protein-Protein Interface Motifs May Help in Identifying Drug Off-Targets , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[46]  Timothy A. Whitehead,et al.  Optimization of affinity, specificity and function of designed influenza inhibitors using deep sequencing , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[47]  Abdul Sattar,et al.  Sequence-only evolutionary and predicted structural features for the prediction of stability changes in protein mutants , 2013, BMC Bioinformatics.

[48]  Yang Zhang,et al.  EvoDesign: de novo protein design based on structural and evolutionary profiles , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[49]  Yang Zhang,et al.  An Evolution-Based Approach to De Novo Protein Design and Case Study on Mycobacterium tuberculosis , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[50]  Hege S. Beard,et al.  Applying Physics-Based Scoring to Calculate Free Energies of Binding for Single Amino Acid Mutations in Protein-Protein Complexes , 2013, PloS one.

[51]  J. Marsh Buried and accessible surface area control intrinsic protein flexibility. , 2013, Journal of molecular biology.

[52]  J. Fernández-Recio,et al.  Intermolecular Contact Potentials for Protein-Protein Interactions Extracted from Binding Free Energy Changes upon Mutation. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[53]  Colleen M. Doyle,et al.  Energetics of oligomeric protein folding and association. , 2013, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[54]  D. V. S. Ravikant,et al.  Improving ranking of models for protein complexes with side chain modeling and atomic potentials , 2013, Proteins.

[55]  Marianne Rooman,et al.  BeAtMuSiC: prediction of changes in protein–protein binding affinity on mutations , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[56]  Jack Snoeyink,et al.  Scientific benchmarks for guiding macromolecular energy function improvement. , 2013, Methods in enzymology.

[57]  P. Kastritis,et al.  On the binding affinity of macromolecular interactions: daring to ask why proteins interact , 2013, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[58]  B. Kuhlman,et al.  A comparison of successful and failed protein interface designs highlights the challenges of designing buried hydrogen bonds , 2013, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[59]  W. Robins,et al.  Coupling mutagenesis and parallel deep sequencing to probe essential residues in a genome or gene , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[60]  Douglas E. V. Pires,et al.  mCSM: predicting the effects of mutations in proteins using graph-based signatures , 2013, Bioinform..

[61]  G. Folkers,et al.  Proteins feel more than they see: fine-tuning of binding affinity by properties of the non-interacting surface. , 2014, Journal of molecular biology.

[62]  A. Panchenko,et al.  Predicting the Impact of Missense Mutations on Protein–Protein Binding Affinity , 2014, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[63]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Non-Redundant Unique Interface Structures as Templates for Modeling Protein Interactions , 2014, PloS one.

[64]  Philip M. Kim,et al.  Combining Structural Modeling with Ensemble Machine Learning to Accurately Predict Protein Fold Stability and Binding Affinity Effects upon Mutation , 2014, PloS one.

[65]  Daniel F. A. R. Dourado,et al.  A multiscale approach to predicting affinity changes in protein–protein interfaces , 2014, Proteins.

[66]  Yang Zhang,et al.  PCalign: a method to quantify physicochemical similarity of protein-protein interfaces , 2015, BMC Bioinformatics.

[67]  Juan Fernández-Recio,et al.  Comment on 'protein-protein binding affinity prediction from amino acid sequence' , 2015, Bioinform..