Protein–protein docking with a reduced protein model accounting for side‐chain flexibility

A protein–protein docking approach has been developed based on a reduced protein representation with up to three pseudo atoms per amino acid residue. Docking is performed by energy minimization in rotational and translational degrees of freedom. The reduced protein representation allows an efficient search for docking minima on the protein surfaces within. During docking, an effective energy function between pseudo atoms has been used based on amino acid size and physico‐chemical character. Energy minimization of protein test complexes in the reduced representation results in geometries close to experiment with backbone root mean square deviations (RMSDs) of ∼1 to 3 Å for the mobile protein partner from the experimental geometry. For most test cases, the energy‐minimized experimental structure scores among the top five energy minima in systematic docking studies when using both partners in their bound conformations. To account for side‐chain conformational changes in case of using unbound protein conformations, a multicopy approach has been used to select the most favorable side‐chain conformation during the docking process. The multicopy approach significantly improves the docking performance, using unbound (apo) binding partners without a significant increase in computer time. For most docking test systems using unbound partners, and without accounting for any information about the known binding geometry, a solution within ∼2 to 3.5 Å RMSD of the full mobile partner from the experimental geometry was found among the 40 top‐scoring complexes. The approach could be extended to include protein loop flexibility, and might also be useful for docking of modeled protein structures.

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

[2]  Hans-Peter Lenhof An algorithm for the protein docking problem , 1995 .

[3]  A Tramontano,et al.  PUZZLE: a new method for automated protein docking based on surface shape complementarity. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[5]  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.

[6]  D. Schomburg,et al.  Hydrogen bonding and molecular surface shape complementarity as a basis for protein docking. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  L. Krippahl,et al.  BiGGER: A new (soft) docking algorithm for predicting protein interactions , 2000, Proteins.

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

[9]  G Cesareni,et al.  Escher: A new docking procedure applied to the reconstruction of protein tertiary structure , 1997, Proteins.

[10]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  Docking of protein models , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[11]  A. Wallqvist,et al.  A simplified amino acid potential for use in structure predictions of proteins , 1994, Proteins.

[12]  M. Sternberg,et al.  An analysis of conformational changes on protein-protein association: implications for predictive docking. , 1999, Protein engineering.

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

[14]  Brian K Shoichet,et al.  Protein–protein docking with multiple residue conformations and residue substitutions , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[15]  D. Ritchie,et al.  Protein docking using spherical polar Fourier correlations , 2000, Proteins.

[16]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Examination of shape complementarity in docking of Unbound proteins , 1999, Proteins.

[17]  Roland L. Dunbrack Rotamer libraries in the 21st century. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[18]  I. Vakser,et al.  Evaluation of GRAMM low‐resolution docking methodology on the hemagglutinin‐antibody complex , 1997, Proteins.

[19]  S. Kim,et al.  "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  S. Vajda,et al.  Protein docking along smooth association pathways , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  Rafael Najmanovich,et al.  Side‐chain flexibility in proteins upon ligand binding , 2000, Proteins.

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

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

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

[25]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Self‐consistent estimation of inter‐residue protein contact energies based on an equilibrium mixture approximation of residues , 1999, Proteins.

[26]  R. Nussinov,et al.  A geometry-based suite of molecular docking processes. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  R. Lavery,et al.  A new approach to the rapid determination of protein side chain conformations. , 1991, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[28]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Soft protein–protein docking in internal coordinates , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[29]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Flexible ligand docking using conformational ensembles , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[30]  C. Chothia,et al.  The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[32]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

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

[34]  M J Sternberg,et al.  A continuum model for protein-protein interactions: application to the docking problem. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins. Application to side-chain prediction. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions , 2002, Proteins.

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

[38]  S Vajda,et al.  Free energy landscapes of encounter complexes in protein-protein association. , 1999, Biophysical journal.

[39]  N Gibbs,et al.  Ab initio protein structure prediction using physicochemical potentials and a simplified off‐lattice model , 2001, Proteins.

[40]  J. Janin,et al.  Protein-protein recognition. , 1995, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[41]  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.

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

[43]  Eleanor J. Gardiner,et al.  Protein docking using a genetic algorithm , 2001, Proteins.

[44]  R C Wade,et al.  Protein-protein association: investigation of factors influencing association rates by brownian dynamics simulations. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[45]  J A McCammon,et al.  Combined conformational search and finite-difference Poisson-Boltzmann approach for flexible docking. Application to an operator mutation in the lambda repressor-operator complex. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[47]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.