Monte Carlo docking with ubiquitin

The development of general strategies for the performance of docking simulations is prerequisite to the exploitation of this powerful computational method. Comprehensive strategies can only be derived from docking experiences with a diverse array of biological systems, and we have chosen the ubiquitin/diubiquitin system as a learning tool for this process. Using our multiple‐start Monte Carlo docking method, we have reconstructed the known structure of diubiquitin from its two halves as well as from two copies of the uncomplexed monomer. For both of these cases, our relatively simple potential function ranked the correct solution among the lowest energy configurations. In the experiments involving the ubiquitin monomer, various structural modifications were made to compensate for the lack of flexibility and for the lack of a covalent bond in the modeled interaction. Potentially flexible regions could be identified using available biochemical and structural information. A systematic conformational search ruled out the possibility that the required covalent bond could be formed in one family of low‐energy configurations, which was distant from the observed dimer configuration. A variety of analyses was performed on the low‐energy dockings obtained in the experiment involving structurally modified ubiquitin. Characterization of the size and chemical nature of the interface surfaces was a powerful adjunct to our potential function, enabling us to distinguish more accurately between correct and incorrect dockings. Calculations with the structure of tetraubiquitin indicated that the dimer configuration in this molecule is much less favorable than that observed in the diubiquitin structure, for a simple monomer‐monomer pair. Based on the analysis of our results, we draw conclusions regarding some of the approximations involved in our simulations, the use of diverse chemical and biochemical information in experimental design and the analysis of docking results, as well as possible modifications to our docking protocol.

[1]  C. Hill,et al.  Crystal structure of a ubiquitin-dependent degradation substrate: a three-disulfide form of lysozyme. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  A. Varshavsky,et al.  The yeast ubiquitin gene: head-to-tail repeats encoding a polyubiquitin precursor protein , 1984, Nature.

[3]  D. Ecker,et al.  A multiubiquitin chain is confined to specific lysine in a targeted short-lived protein. , 1989, Science.

[4]  J. Janin,et al.  Rigid‐body docking with mutant constraints of influenza hemagglutinin with antibody HC19 , 1994, Proteins.

[5]  M. Hochstrasser.  Ubiquitin and intracellular protein degradation. , 1992, Current opinion in cell biology.

[6]  M G Rossmann,et al.  Comparison of super-secondary structures in proteins. , 1973, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  C. Pickart,et al.  A 25-kilodalton ubiquitin carrier protein (E2) catalyzes multi-ubiquitin chain synthesis via lysine 48 of ubiquitin. , 1990, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[8]  R. Vierstra,et al.  Complete amino acid sequence of ubiquitin from the higher plant Avena sativa , 1986 .

[9]  D. Ecker,et al.  Gene synthesis, expression, structures, and functional activities of site-specific mutants of ubiquitin. , 1987, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[10]  S. Jentsch.  The ubiquitin-conjugation system. , 1992, Annual review of genetics.

[11]  Johan Desmet,et al.  The dead-end elimination theorem and its use in protein side-chain positioning , 1992, Nature.

[12]  A. Hershko,et al.  Occurrence of a polyubiquitin structure in ubiquitin-protein conjugates. , 1985, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[13]  Randy J. Read,et al.  Multiple-Start Monte Carlo Docking of Flexible Ligands , 1994 .

[14]  M. Goebl,et al.  A chimeric ubiquitin conjugating enzyme that combines the cell cycle properties of CDC34 (UBC3) and the DNA repair properties of RAD6 (UBC2): implications for the structure, function and evolution of the E2s. , 1992, The EMBO journal.

[15]  M. Carson,et al.  Structure of a diubiquitin conjugate and a model for interaction with ubiquitin conjugating enzyme (E2). , 1993, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[16]  A. Hershko.  The ubiquitin pathway for protein degradation. , 1991, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[17]  C Chothia,et al.  Surface, subunit interfaces and interior of oligomeric proteins. , 1988, Journal of molecular biology.

[18]  V. Chau,et al.  Tertiary structures of class I ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes are highly conserved: crystal structure of yeast Ubc4. , 1993, Biochemistry.

[19]  D. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing , 1990, Proteins.

[20]  A. Varshavsky.  The N-end rule , 1992, Cell.

[21]  T. Richmond,et al.  Solvent accessible surface area and excluded volume in proteins. Analytical equations for overlapping spheres and implications for the hydrophobic effect. , 1984, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  S. Miller.  The structure of interfaces between subunits of dimeric and tetrameric proteins. , 1989, Protein engineering.

[23]  V. Chau,et al.  A uniform isopeptide-linked multiubiquitin chain is sufficient to target substrate for degradation in ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis. , 1990, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[24]  J. Janin,et al.  Protein docking algorithms: simulating molecular recognition , 1993 .

[25]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Protein docking and complementarity. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[26]  J Moult,et al.  Docking by least-squares fitting of molecular surface patterns. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  Q. Deveraux,et al.  A 26 S protease subunit that binds ubiquitin conjugates. , 1994, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[28]  Randy J. Read,et al.  A multiple‐start Monte Carlo docking method , 1992 .

[29]  C. Pickart,et al.  Structure of tetraubiquitin shows how multiubiquitin chains can be formed. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[30]  R. Cohen,et al.  Ubiquitin conjugation to cytochromes c. Structure of the yeast iso-1 conjugate and possible recognition determinants. , 1992, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[31]  D. Koshland,et al.  Prediction of the structure of a receptor–protein complex using a binary docking method , 1992, Nature.

[32]  J. Janin,et al.  Protein‐protein recognition analyzed by docking simulation , 1991, Proteins.

[33]  G J Williams,et al.  The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. , 1977, Journal of molecular biology.

[34]  S V Evans,et al.  SETOR: hardware-lighted three-dimensional solid model representations of macromolecules. , 1993, Journal of molecular graphics.

[35]  A. Leach,et al.  Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  K. Wilkinson,et al.  Structure and activities of a variant ubiquitin sequence from bakers' yeast. , 1986, Biochemistry.

[37]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Structure-Based Molecular Design , 1994 .

[38]  A. D. McLachlan,et al.  Solvation energy in protein folding and binding , 1986, Nature.

[39]  M. Rechsteiner.  Natural substrates of the Ubiquitin proteolytic pathway , 1991, Cell.

[40]  V. Chau,et al.  Specific recognition of calmodulin from Dictyostelium discoideum by the ATP, ubiquitin-dependent degradative pathway. , 1985, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[41]  R. Ornstein,et al.  A method for determining the positions of polar hydrogens added to a protein structure that maximizes protein hydrogen bonding , 1992, Proteins.

[42]  C. Bugg,et al.  Structure of ubiquitin refined at 1.8 A resolution. , 1987, Journal of molecular biology.

[43]  A. Ciechanover,et al.  The ubiquitin system for protein degradation. , 1992, Annual review of biochemistry.

[44]  J. Changeux,et al.  ON THE NATURE OF ALLOSTERIC TRANSITIONS: A PLAUSIBLE MODEL. , 1965, Journal of molecular biology.

[45]  K. Wilkinson.  Purification and Structural Properties of Ubiquitin , 1988 .

[46]  M. Sullivan,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of a ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme (E2). , 1993, The Journal of biological chemistry.