Automatic prediction of flexible regions improves the accuracy of protein-protein docking models

Computational models of protein-protein docking that incorporate backbone flexibility can predict perturbations of the backbone and side chains during docking and produce protein interaction models with atomic accuracy. Most previous models usually predefine flexible regions by visually comparing the bound and unbound structures. In this paper, we propose a general method to automatically identify the flexible hinges for domain assembly and the flexible loops for loop refinement, in addition to predicting the corresponding movements of the identified active residues. We conduct experiments to evaluate performance of our approach on two test sets. Comparison of results on test set I between algorithms with and without prediction of flexible regions demonstrate the superior recovery of energy funnels in many target interactions using the new loop refinement model. In addition, our decoys are superior for each target. Indeed, the total number of satisfactory models is almost double that of other programs. The results on test set II docking tests produced by our domain assembly method also show encouraging results. Of the three targets examined, one exhibits energy funnel and the best models of the other two targets all meet the conditions of acceptable accuracy. Results demonstrate that the automatic prediction of flexible backbone regions can greatly improve the performance of protein-protein docking models.

[1]  W. Kabsch,et al.  Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen‐bonded and geometrical features , 1983, Biopolymers.

[2]  David Baker,et al.  Protein-protein docking with backbone flexibility. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  C. Anfinsen Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. , 1973, Science.

[4]  P. Bork,et al.  Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes , 2002, Nature.

[5]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  Protein-protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  O. Schueler‐Furman,et al.  Improved side‐chain modeling for protein–protein docking , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[7]  Victoria A. Higman,et al.  Uncovering network systems within protein structures. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  Anders Liljas,et al.  Recognition of structural domains in globular proteins , 1974 .

[9]  Colin A. Smith,et al.  Backrub-like backbone simulation recapitulates natural protein conformational variability and improves mutant side-chain prediction. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  James R. Knight,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2000, Nature.

[11]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Automatic prediction of protein interactions with large scale motion , 2007, Proteins.

[12]  M. Zacharias,et al.  Accounting for loop flexibility during protein–protein docking , 2005, Proteins.

[13]  Ian W. Davis,et al.  The backrub motion: how protein backbone shrugs when a sidechain dances. , 2006, Structure.

[14]  Colin A. Smith,et al.  A simple model of backbone flexibility improves modeling of side-chain conformational variability. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Protein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0 , 2010, Proteins.

[16]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  HingeProt: Automated prediction of hinges in protein structures , 2008, Proteins.

[17]  R Abagyan,et al.  A new method for modeling large‐scale rearrangements of protein domains , 1997, Proteins.

[18]  S. Wodak,et al.  Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods , 2003, Proteins.

[19]  E. Katchalski‐Katzir,et al.  Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  T. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank and the challenge of structural genomics , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[21]  Gil Amitai,et al.  Network analysis of protein structures identifies functional residues. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  G J Barton,et al.  Continuous and discontinuous domains: An algorithm for the automatic generation of reliable protein domain definitions , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[23]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics , 2002, Proteins.

[24]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  A protein–protein docking benchmark , 2003, Proteins.

[25]  Haiyan Jiang,et al.  Ab initio construction of all-atom loop conformations , 2006, Journal of molecular modeling.

[26]  Sandor Vajda,et al.  CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions , 2003, Proteins.

[27]  S. Wodak,et al.  Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures , 2005, Proteins.