Amino acid network and its scoring application in protein-protein docking.

Protein-protein complex, composed of hydrophobic and hydrophilic residues, can be divided into hydrophobic and hydrophilic amino acid network structures respectively. In this paper, we are interested in analyzing these two different types of networks and find that these networks are of small-world properties. Due to the characteristic complementarity of the complex interfaces, protein-protein docking can be viewed as a particular network rewiring. These networks of correct docked complex conformations have much more increase of the degree values and decay of the clustering coefficients than those of the incorrect ones. Therefore, two scoring terms based on the network parameters are proposed, in which the geometric complementarity, hydrophobic-hydrophobic and polar-polar interactions are taken into account. Compared with a two-term energy function, a simple scoring function HPNet which includes the two network-based scoring terms shows advantages in two aspects, not relying on energy considerations and better discrimination. Furthermore, combing the network-based scoring terms with some other energy terms, a new multi-term scoring function HPNet-combine can also make some improvements to the scoring function of RosettaDock.

[1]  M J Sternberg,et al.  New algorithm to model protein-protein recognition based on surface complementarity. Applications to antibody-antigen docking. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  S. Vajda,et al.  Scoring docked conformations generated by rigid‐body protein‐protein docking , 2000, Proteins.

[3]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[4]  Wei Zu Chen,et al.  A soft docking algorithm for predicting the structure of antibody‐antigen complexes , 2003, Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics.

[5]  A. Bogan,et al.  Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  S. Jones,et al.  Principles of protein-protein interactions. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  C. DeLisi,et al.  Determination of atomic desolvation energies from the structures of crystallized proteins. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  J. Janin,et al.  Dissecting subunit interfaces in homodimeric proteins , 2003, Proteins.

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

[10]  Shan Chang,et al.  Construction and application of the weighted amino acid network based on energy. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[11]  Sudip Kundu,et al.  Amino acid network within protein , 2005 .

[12]  Antonio del Sol,et al.  Topology of small-world networks of protein?Cprotein complex structures , 2005, Bioinform..

[13]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  A survey of flexible protein binding mechanisms and their transition states using native topology based energy landscapes. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

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

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

[16]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Ligand Binding and Circular Permutation Modify Residue Interaction Network in DHFR , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

[18]  K. Dill,et al.  Designing amino acid sequences to fold with good hydrophobic cores. , 1995, Protein engineering.

[19]  Gerhard Sagerer,et al.  Estimation and filtering of potential protein-protein docking positions , 1998, Bioinform..

[20]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  Hydrophobic complementarity in protein–protein docking , 2004, Proteins.

[21]  M. Karplus,et al.  CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations , 1983 .

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

[23]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Rapid refinement of protein interfaces incorporating solvation: application to the docking problem. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  Saraswathi Vishveshwara,et al.  Oligomeric protein structure networks: insights into protein-protein interactions , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[26]  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.

[27]  S. Redner.  How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution , 1998, cond-mat/9804163.

[28]  R M Jackson,et al.  Comparison of protein–protein interactions in serine protease‐inhibitor and antibody‐antigen complexes: Implications for the protein docking problem , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[29]  A. del Sol,et al.  Small‐world network approach to identify key residues in protein–protein interaction , 2004, Proteins.

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

[31]  B Honig,et al.  Electrostatic contributions to protein–protein interactions: Fast energetic filters for docking and their physical basis , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[32]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Residues crucial for maintaining short paths in network communication mediate signaling in proteins , 2006, Molecular systems biology.

[33]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  Electrostatics in protein–protein docking , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[34]  Sudip Kundu,et al.  Weighted and unweighted network of amino acids within protein , 2005, q-bio/0509025.

[35]  L. Wyns,et al.  Three camelid VHH domains in complex with porcine pancreatic alpha-amylase. Inhibition and versatility of binding topology. , 2002, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[36]  M Karplus,et al.  Small-world view of the amino acids that play a key role in protein folding. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[37]  Andrei Z. Broder,et al.  Graph structure in the Web , 2000, Comput. Networks.

[38]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  Topological determinants of protein folding , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  E. Jaeger,et al.  Docking: successes and challenges. , 2005, Current pharmaceutical design.

[40]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Internet: Diameter of the World-Wide Web , 1999, Nature.

[41]  A. Atilgan,et al.  Small-world communication of residues and significance for protein dynamics. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

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