Information-Driven, Ensemble Flexible Peptide Docking Using HADDOCK.

Modeling protein-peptide interactions remains a significant challenge for docking programs due to the inherent highly flexible nature of peptides, which often adopt different conformations whether in their free or bound forms. We present here a protocol consisting of a hybrid approach, combining the most frequently found peptide conformations in complexes with representative conformations taken from molecular dynamics simulations of the free peptide. This approach intends to broaden the range of conformations sampled during docking. The resulting ensemble of conformations is used as a starting point for information-driven flexible docking with HADDOCK. We demonstrate the performance of this protocol on six cases of increasing difficulty, taken from a protein-peptide benchmark set. In each case, we use knowledge of the binding site on the receptor to drive the docking process. In the majority of cases where MD conformations are added to the starting ensemble for docking, we observe an improvement in the quality of the resulting models.

[1]  C. Dominguez,et al.  HADDOCK: a protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[2]  J P Changeux,et al.  On the nature of allosteric transitions: implications of non-exclusive ligand binding. , 1966, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  Berk Hess,et al.  GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers , 2015 .

[4]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  HADDOCK versus HADDOCK: New features and performance of HADDOCK2.0 on the CAPRI targets , 2007, Proteins.

[5]  D. Craik,et al.  The Future of Peptide‐based Drugs , 2013, Chemical biology & drug design.

[6]  R. Dror,et al.  Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field , 2010, Proteins.

[7]  A. Bonvin,et al.  The HADDOCK web server for data-driven biomolecular docking , 2010, Nature Protocols.

[8]  Vincent B. Chen,et al.  Correspondence e-mail: , 2000 .

[9]  Niall J. Haslam,et al.  Understanding eukaryotic linear motifs and their role in cell signaling and regulation. , 2008, Frontiers in bioscience : a journal and virtual library.

[10]  D. Koshland,et al.  Enzyme flexibility and enzyme action. , 1959, Journal of cellular and comparative physiology.

[11]  Nir London,et al.  The structural basis of peptide-protein binding strategies. , 2010, Structure.

[12]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Clustering biomolecular complexes by residue contacts similarity , 2012, Proteins.

[13]  E. Fischer Einfluss der Configuration auf die Wirkung der Enzyme , 1894 .

[14]  G C P van Zundert,et al.  The HADDOCK2.2 Web Server: User-Friendly Integrative Modeling of Biomolecular Complexes. , 2016, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  J. Changeux,et al.  ON THE NATURE OF ALLOSTERIC TRANSITIONS: A PLAUSIBLE MODEL. , 1965, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  The OPLS [optimized potentials for liquid simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. , 1988, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[17]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Advances in integrative modeling of biomolecular complexes. , 2013, Methods.

[18]  Simon Mitternacht FreeSASA 1.1: Solvent accessible surface area calculation , 2016 .

[20]  A. Brunger Version 1.2 of the Crystallography and NMR system , 2007, Nature Protocols.

[21]  L. Otvos Peptide-based drug design: here and now. , 2008, Methods in molecular biology.

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

[23]  Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,et al.  Data-driven Docking: Using External Information to Spark the Biomolecular Rendez-vous , 2010 .

[24]  E. Di Cera,et al.  Conformational selection or induced fit? A critical appraisal of the kinetic mechanism. , 2012, Biochemistry.

[25]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Identification of protein-protein interaction sites from docking energy landscapes. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[26]  Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,et al.  A Unified Conformational Selection and Induced Fit Approach to Protein-Peptide Docking , 2013, PloS one.

[27]  J. Janin Assessing predictions of protein–protein interaction: The CAPRI experiment , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[28]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  How proteins get in touch: interface prediction in the study of biomolecular complexes. , 2008, Current protein & peptide science.

[29]  Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,et al.  CPORT: A Consensus Interface Predictor and Its Performance in Prediction-Driven Docking with HADDOCK , 2011, PloS one.

[30]  J. Rodrigues,et al.  Integrative computational modeling of protein interactions , 2014, The FEBS journal.

[31]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Folding and binding cascades: Dynamic landscapes and population shifts , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[32]  R J Read,et al.  Crystallography & NMR system: A new software suite for macromolecular structure determination. , 1998, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.