Designing coarse grained-and atom based-potentials for protein-protein docking

BackgroundProtein-protein docking is a challenging computational problem in functional genomics, particularly when one or both proteins undergo conformational change(s) upon binding. The major challenge is to define a scoring function soft enough to tolerate these changes and specific enough to distinguish between near-native and "misdocked" conformations.ResultsUsing a linear programming (LP) technique, we developed two types of potentials: (i) Side chain-based and (ii) Heavy atom-based. To achieve this we considered a set of 161 transient complexes and generated a large set of putative docked structures (decoys), based on a shape complementarity criterion, for each complex. The demand on the potentials was to yield, for the native (correctly docked) structure, a potential energy lower than those of any of the non-native (misdocked) structures. We show that the heavy atom-based potentials were able to comply with this requirement but not the side chain-based one. Thus, despite the smaller number of parameters, the capability of heavy atom-based potentials to discriminate between native and "misdocked" conformations is improved relative to those of the side chain-based potentials. The performance of the atom-based potentials was evaluated by a jackknife test on a set of 50 complexes taken from the Zdock2.3 decoys set.ConclusionsOur results show that, using the LP approach, we were able to train our potentials using a dataset of transient complexes only the newly developed potentials outperform three other known potentials in this test.

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

[2]  Z. Weng,et al.  Atomic contact vectors in protein‐protein recognition , 2003, Proteins.

[3]  Martin Zacharias,et al.  Accounting for conformational changes during protein-protein docking. , 2010, Current opinion in structural biology.

[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]  G. Crippen,et al.  Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  Kornelia Polyak,et al.  Mechanism of CDK activation revealed by the structure of a cyclinA-CDK2 complex , 1995, Nature.

[8]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  A physical reference state unifies the structure‐derived potential of mean force for protein folding and binding , 2004, Proteins.

[9]  C. Camacho,et al.  Scoring a diverse set of high‐quality docked conformations: A metascore based on electrostatic and desolvation interactions , 2006, Proteins.

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

[11]  C. Mészáros.  Fast Cholesky factorization for interior point methods of linear programming , 1996 .

[12]  R. Elber,et al.  Distance‐dependent, pair potential for protein folding: Results from linear optimization , 2000, Proteins.

[13]  Patrick M Giguère,et al.  Structure of the parathyroid hormone receptor C terminus bound to the G-protein dimer Gbeta1gamma2. , 2008, Structure.

[14]  Stephen R Comeau,et al.  DARS (Decoys As the Reference State) potentials for protein-protein docking. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[15]  L. A. Clark,et al.  A knowledge‐based forcefield for protein–protein interface design , 2007, Proteins.

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

[17]  Tammy M. K. Cheng,et al.  pyDock: Electrostatics and desolvation for effective scoring of rigid‐body protein–protein docking , 2007, Proteins.

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

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

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

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

[22]  Z. Weng,et al.  ZDOCK: An initial‐stage protein‐docking algorithm , 2003, Proteins.

[23]  Ivet Bahar,et al.  Optimal design of protein docking potentials: Efficiency and limitations , 2005, Proteins.

[24]  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.

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

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

[27]  Ron Elber,et al.  Building and assessing atomic models of proteins from structural templates: Learning and benchmarks , 2009, Proteins.

[28]  O. Schueler‐Furman,et al.  Progress in Modeling of Protein Structures and Interactions , 2005, Science.

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

[30]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  Weighted geometric docking: Incorporating external information in the rotation‐translation scan , 2003, Proteins.

[31]  Z. Weng,et al.  A novel shape complementarity scoring function for protein‐protein docking , 2003, Proteins.

[32]  R. Abagyan,et al.  ICM‐DISCO docking by global energy optimization with fully flexible side‐chains , 2003, Proteins.

[33]  Dima Kozakov,et al.  Convergence and combination of methods in protein-protein docking. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

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

[35]  Ron Elber,et al.  PIE—Efficient filters and coarse grained potentials for unbound protein–protein docking , 2010, Proteins.

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

[37]  B. Rost,et al.  Analysing six types of protein-protein interfaces. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[39]  L. T. Ten Eyck,et al.  Protein docking using continuum electrostatics and geometric fit. , 2001, Protein engineering.