Protein–protein interaction specificity is captured by contact preferences and interface composition

Motivation Large‐scale computational docking will be increasingly used in future years to discriminate protein‐protein interactions at the residue resolution. Complete cross‐docking experiments make in silico reconstruction of protein‐protein interaction networks a feasible goal. They ask for efficient and accurate screening of the millions structural conformations issued by the calculations. Results We propose CIPS (Combined Interface Propensity for decoy Scoring), a new pair potential combining interface composition with residue‐residue contact preference. CIPS outperforms several other methods on screening docking solutions obtained either with all‐atom or with coarse‐grain rigid docking. Further testing on 28 CAPRI targets corroborates CIPS predictive power over existing methods. By combining CIPS with atomic potentials, discrimination of correct conformations in all‐atom structures reaches optimal accuracy. The drastic reduction of candidate solutions produced by thousands of proteins docked against each other makes large‐scale docking accessible to analysis. Availability and implementation CIPS source code is freely available at http://www.lcqb.upmc.fr/CIPS.

[1]  Dominique Douguet,et al.  DOCKGROUND resource for studying protein-protein interfaces , 2006, Bioinform..

[2]  Carles Pons,et al.  Scoring by Intermolecular Pairwise Propensities of Exposed Residues (SIPPER): A New Efficient Potential for Protein-Protein Docking , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Protein–protein interactions: Structurally conserved residues distinguish between binding sites and exposed protein surfaces , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Hui Lu,et al.  Development of unified statistical potentials describing protein-protein interactions. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[5]  S. Jones,et al.  Analysis of protein-protein interaction sites using surface patches. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  Alessandra Carbone,et al.  Protein-Protein Interactions in a Crowded Environment: An Analysis via Cross-Docking Simulations and Evolutionary Information , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[7]  Itay Mayrose,et al.  Rate4Site: an algorithmic tool for the identification of functional regions in proteins by surface mapping of evolutionary determinants within their homologues , 2002, ISMB.

[8]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function for protein–protein recognition , 2008, Proteins.

[9]  Gürol M. Süel,et al.  Evolutionarily conserved networks of residues mediate allosteric communication in proteins , 2003, Nature Structural Biology.

[10]  Z. Weng,et al.  Protein–protein docking benchmark 2.0: An update , 2005, Proteins.

[11]  Pamela F. Jones,et al.  Improving the prediction of protein binding sites by combining heterogeneous data and Voronoi diagrams , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[12]  Marc F Lensink,et al.  Docking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009 , 2010, Proteins.

[13]  J. Thornton,et al.  Diversity of protein–protein interactions , 2003, The EMBO journal.

[14]  Simon Mitternacht,et al.  FreeSASA: An open source C library for solvent accessible surface area calculations , 2016, F1000Research.

[15]  Z. Weng,et al.  Integrating statistical pair potentials into protein complex prediction , 2007, Proteins.

[16]  Alessandra Carbone,et al.  Identification of protein interaction partners and protein-protein interaction sites. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  Ilya A. Vakser,et al.  DECK: Distance and environment-dependent, coarse-grained, knowledge-based potentials for protein-protein docking , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[18]  Angela D. Wilkins,et al.  Accounting for epistatic interactions improves the functional analysis of protein structures , 2013, Bioinform..

[19]  Shan Chang,et al.  Complex-type-dependent scoring functions in protein-protein docking. , 2007, Biophysical chemistry.

[20]  Bogdan Istrate,et al.  Algorithmic approaches to protein-protein interaction site prediction , 2015, Algorithms for Molecular Biology.

[21]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Studies of protein‐protein interfaces: A statistical analysis of the hydrophobic effect , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[22]  C. Axel Innis,et al.  siteFiNDER|3D: a web-based tool for predicting the location of functional sites in proteins , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[23]  S. Wodak,et al.  Docking and scoring protein complexes: CAPRI 3rd Edition , 2007, Proteins.

[24]  Thomas A. Hopf,et al.  Protein structure prediction from sequence variation , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[25]  Marc F Lensink,et al.  Docking, scoring, and affinity prediction in CAPRI , 2013, Proteins.

[26]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  Evolutionary predictions of binding surfaces and interactions. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[27]  Raquel Norel,et al.  Protein interface conservation across structure space , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Andrey Tovchigrechko,et al.  GRAMM-X public web server for protein–protein docking , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[29]  T. Hwa,et al.  Identification of direct residue contacts in protein–protein interaction by message passing , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[31]  Michal Brylinski,et al.  Predicting protein interface residues using easily accessible on-line resources , 2015, Briefings Bioinform..

[32]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou,et al.  Prediction of protein interaction sites from sequence profile and residue neighbor list , 2001, Proteins.

[33]  Anna Vangone,et al.  Contacts-based prediction of binding affinity in protein–protein complexes , 2015, eLife.

[34]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[35]  R. Raz,et al.  ProMate: a structure based prediction program to identify the location of protein-protein binding sites. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  Rebecca C. Wade,et al.  Protein‐Protein Docking , 2001 .

[37]  Thomas A. Hopf,et al.  Sequence co-evolution gives 3D contacts and structures of protein complexes , 2014, eLife.

[38]  Rainer Merkl,et al.  PROCOS: Computational analysis of protein–protein complexes , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[40]  F. Cohen,et al.  An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  W. Delano.  The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System , 2002 .

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

[43]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Optimal docking area: A new method for predicting protein–protein interaction sites , 2004, Proteins.

[44]  Mihaly Mezei,et al.  Statistical Properties of Protein-Protein Interfaces , 2015, Algorithms.

[45]  Werner Braun,et al.  Statistical analysis of physical-chemical properties and prediction of protein-protein interfaces , 2007, Journal of molecular modeling.

[46]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  Predicting protein-protein interface residues using local surface structural similarity , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[47]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Prediction of homoprotein and heteroprotein complexes by protein docking and template‐based modeling: A CASP‐CAPRI experiment , 2016, Proteins.

[48]  Daniel R. Caffrey,et al.  Are protein–protein interfaces more conserved in sequence than the rest of the protein surface? , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[49]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Principles of flexible protein–protein docking , 2008, Proteins.

[50]  Chris Morley,et al.  Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox , 2011, J. Cheminformatics.

[51]  Martin Zacharias,et al.  In silico prediction of binding sites on proteins. , 2010, Current medicinal chemistry.

[52]  Raphael A. G. Chaleil,et al.  Updates to the Integrated Protein-Protein Interaction Benchmarks: Docking Benchmark Version 5 and Affinity Benchmark Version 2. , 2015, Journal of molecular biology.

[53]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R , 2005, Bioinform..

[54]  J. Janin,et al.  Dissecting protein–protein recognition sites , 2002, Proteins.

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

[56]  Song Liu,et al.  Protein binding site prediction using an empirical scoring function , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[57]  Mieczyslaw Torchala,et al.  The scoring of poses in protein-protein docking: current capabilities and future directions , 2013, BMC Bioinformatics.

[58]  Elisenda Feliu,et al.  On the analysis of protein–protein interactions via knowledge‐based potentials for the prediction of protein–protein docking , 2011, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[59]  Alessandra Carbone,et al.  Local Geometry and Evolutionary Conservation of Protein Surfaces Reveal the Multiple Recognition Patches in Protein-Protein Interactions , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[60]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  ZRANK: Reranking protein docking predictions with an optimized energy function , 2007, Proteins.

[61]  N. Ben-Tal,et al.  Residue frequencies and pairing preferences at protein–protein interfaces , 2001, Proteins.

[62]  M J Sternberg,et al.  Use of pair potentials across protein interfaces in screening predicted docked complexes , 1999, Proteins.

[63]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  Development and testing of an automated approach to protein docking , 2005, Proteins.

[64]  K. Henrick,et al.  Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline state. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[66]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  High-resolution protein-protein docking. , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[67]  N. Ben-Tal,et al.  ConSurf: an algorithmic tool for the identification of functional regions in proteins by surface mapping of phylogenetic information. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.