Flex ddG: Rosetta ensemble-based estimation of changes in protein-protein binding affinity upon mutation

Computationally modeling changes in binding free energies upon mutation (interface ΔΔ G) allows large-scale prediction and perturbation of protein-protein interactions. Additionally, methods that consider and sample relevant conformational plasticity should be able to achieve higher prediction accuracy over methods that do not. To test this hypothesis, we developed a method within the Rosetta macromolecular modeling suite (flex ddG) that samples conformational diversity using "backrub" to generate an ensemble of models and then applies torsion minimization, side chain repacking, and averaging across this ensemble to estimate interface ΔΔ G values. We tested our method on a curated benchmark set of 1240 mutants, and found the method outperformed existing methods that sampled conformational space to a lesser degree. We observed considerable improvements with flex ddG over existing methods on the subset of small side chain to large side chain mutations, as well as for multiple simultaneous non-alanine mutations, stabilizing mutations, and mutations in antibody-antigen interfaces. Finally, we applied a generalized additive model (GAM) approach to the Rosetta energy function; the resulting nonlinear reweighting model improved the agreement with experimentally determined interface ΔΔ G values but also highlighted the necessity of future energy function improvements.

[1]  D. Baker,et al.  An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[3]  David Baker,et al.  Symmetry recognizing asymmetry: analysis of the interactions between the C-type lectin-like immunoreceptor NKG2D and MHC class I-like ligands. , 2003, Structure.

[4]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Coupling Protein Side-Chain and Backbone Flexibility Improves the Re-design of Protein-Ligand Specificity , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[5]  Brian Kuhlman,et al.  Protein design simulations suggest that side‐chain conformational entropy is not a strong determinant of amino acid environmental preferences , 2005, Proteins.

[6]  Adam M Damry,et al.  Prediction of Stable Globular Proteins Using Negative Design with Non-native Backbone Ensembles. , 2015, Structure.

[7]  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.

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

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

[10]  Samuel L. DeLuca,et al.  Practically Useful: What the Rosetta Protein Modeling Suite Can Do for You , 2010, Biochemistry.

[11]  Richard J. Simpson,et al.  Proteins and proteomics : a laboratory manual , 2003 .

[12]  Julie C. Mitchell,et al.  KFC2: A knowledge‐based hot spot prediction method based on interface solvation, atomic density, and plasticity features , 2011, Proteins.

[13]  David Baker,et al.  Sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design , 2017, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[14]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Identification of computational hot spots in protein interfaces: combining solvent accessibility and inter-residue potentials improves the accuracy , 2009, Bioinform..

[15]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  A smoothed backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins derived from adaptive kernel density estimates and regressions. , 2011, Structure.

[16]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Predicting the Effect of Mutations on Protein-Protein Binding Interactions through Structure-Based Interface Profiles , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[17]  Masahiko Nakatsui,et al.  The Effect of Conformational Flexibility on Binding Free Energy Estimation between Kinases and Their Inhibitors , 2016, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Exploring the interplay between experimental methods and the performance of predictors of binding affinity change upon mutations in protein complexes. , 2016, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[19]  Bruce Randall Donald,et al.  The Role of Local Backrub Motions in Evolved and Designed Mutations , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

[21]  Doyle P. Bean,et al.  Understanding thermal adaptation of enzymes through the multistate rational design and stability prediction of 100 adenylate kinases. , 2014, Structure.

[22]  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.

[23]  M. Karplus,et al.  Effective energy function for proteins in solution , 1999, Proteins.

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

[25]  D. Baker,et al.  Structure-guided forcefield optimization , 2011, Proteins.

[26]  J. Wells,et al.  High-resolution epitope mapping of hGH-receptor interactions by alanine-scanning mutagenesis. , 1989, Science.

[27]  Jens Meiler,et al.  RosettaScripts: A Scripting Language Interface to the Rosetta Macromolecular Modeling Suite , 2011, PloS one.

[28]  B. Stoddard,et al.  Design, activity, and structure of a highly specific artificial endonuclease. , 2002, Molecular cell.

[29]  Matthew J. O’Meara,et al.  Combined covalent-electrostatic model of hydrogen bonding improves structure prediction with Rosetta. , 2015, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[30]  Roberto A. Chica,et al.  Optimization of rotamers prior to template minimization improves stability predictions made by computational protein design , 2015, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[31]  D. Baker,et al.  A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein–protein complexes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Structure-based prediction of the peptide sequence space recognized by natural and synthetic PDZ domains. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  Christopher Bystroff,et al.  Protein backbone ensemble generation explores the local structural space of unseen natural homologs , 2016, Bioinform..

[34]  Lu Zhang,et al.  Massively parallel de novo protein design for targeted therapeutics , 2017, Nature.

[35]  Colin A. Smith,et al.  Predicting the Tolerated Sequences for Proteins and Protein Interfaces Using RosettaBackrub Flexible Backbone Design , 2011, PloS one.

[36]  David Baker,et al.  Convergent mechanisms for recognition of divergent cytokines by the shared signaling receptor gp130. , 2003, Molecular cell.

[37]  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.

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

[39]  Timothy A. Whitehead,et al.  Computational Design of Proteins Targeting the Conserved Stem Region of Influenza Hemagglutinin , 2011, Science.

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

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

[42]  B. Kuhlman,et al.  Structure-based protocol for identifying mutations that enhance protein-protein binding affinities. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

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

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

[45]  Bernardo Ochoa-Montaño,et al.  Mutations at protein-protein interfaces: Small changes over big surfaces have large impacts on human health. , 2017, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[46]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Control of protein signaling using a computationally designed GTPase/GEF orthogonal pair , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[47]  Jiye Shi,et al.  SAbDab: the structural antibody database , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[49]  David E. Kim,et al.  Computational Alanine Scanning of Protein-Protein Interfaces , 2004, Science's STKE.

[50]  David Baker,et al.  Rational Design of Intercellular Adhesion Molecule-1 (ICAM-1) Variants for Antagonizing Integrin Lymphocyte Function-associated Antigen-1-dependent Adhesion* , 2006, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

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

[52]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Computer-aided design of functional protein interactions. , 2009, Nature chemical biology.

[53]  Roberto A Chica,et al.  Improving the accuracy of protein stability predictions with multistate design using a variety of backbone ensembles , 2014, Proteins.

[54]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  The Rosetta all-atom energy function for macromolecular modeling and design , 2017, bioRxiv.

[55]  Jason K Lai,et al.  Enhancing Structure Prediction and Design of Soluble and Membrane Proteins with Explicit Solvent-Protein Interactions. , 2017, Structure.

[56]  Kyle A. Barlow,et al.  A Web Resource for Standardized Benchmark Datasets, Metrics, and Rosetta Protocols for Macromolecular Modeling and Design , 2015, PloS one.

[57]  D. Baker,et al.  Role of conformational sampling in computing mutation‐induced changes in protein structure and stability , 2011, Proteins.

[58]  Andrew Leaver-Fay,et al.  A Generic Program for Multistate Protein Design , 2011, PloS one.

[59]  C. Langmead,et al.  Accounting for conformational entropy in predicting binding free energies of protein‐protein interactions , 2011, Proteins.