Modeling disordered protein interactions from biophysical principles

Disordered protein-protein interactions (PPIs), those involving a folded protein and an intrinsically disordered protein (IDP), are prevalent in the cell, including important signaling and regulatory pathways. IDPs do not adopt a single dominant structure in isolation but often become ordered upon binding. To aid understanding of the molecular mechanisms of disordered PPIs, it is crucial to obtain the tertiary structure of the PPIs. However, experimental methods have difficulty in solving disordered PPIs and existing protein-protein and protein-peptide docking methods are not able to model them. Here we present a novel computational method, IDP-LZerD, which models the conformation of a disordered PPI by considering the biophysical binding mechanism of an IDP to a structured protein, whereby a local segment of the IDP initiates the interaction and subsequently the remaining IDP regions explore and coalesce around the initial binding site. On a dataset of 22 disordered PPIs with IDPs up to 69 amino acids, successful predictions were made for 21 bound and 18 unbound receptors. The successful modeling provides additional support for biophysical principles. Moreover, the new technique significantly expands the capability of protein structure modeling and provides crucial insights into the molecular mechanisms of disordered PPIs.

[1]  M. Eisenstein,et al.  Computational mapping of anchoring spots on protein surfaces. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  Iris Antes,et al.  DynaDock: A new molecular dynamics‐based algorithm for protein–peptide docking including receptor flexibility , 2010, Proteins.

[3]  Peter E Wright,et al.  Roles of Phosphorylation and Helix Propensity in the Binding of the KIX Domain of CREB-binding Protein by Constitutive (c-Myb) and Inducible (CREB) Activators* , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

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

[5]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  Distance‐scaled, finite ideal‐gas reference state improves structure‐derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[6]  Christian Cole,et al.  JPred4: a protein secondary structure prediction server , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  Marc S. Cortese,et al.  Analysis of molecular recognition features (MoRFs). , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  Lenna X. Peterson,et al.  Assessment of protein side‐chain conformation prediction methods in different residue environments , 2014, Proteins.

[9]  D. van der Spoel,et al.  Efficient docking of peptides to proteins without prior knowledge of the binding site , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[10]  Kevin M. D'Auria,et al.  Structural and dynamic determinants of protein-peptide recognition. , 2011, Structure.

[11]  Chi Zhang,et al.  Fast and accurate prediction of protein side-chain conformations , 2011, Bioinform..

[12]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Molecular surface representation using 3D Zernike descriptors for protein shape comparison and docking. , 2011, Current protein & peptide science.

[13]  Axel T. Brunger,et al.  Substrate recognition strategy for botulinum neurotoxin serotype A , 2004, Nature.

[14]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou,et al.  Rate constants and mechanisms of intrinsically disordered proteins binding to structured targets. , 2012, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[15]  Eugene I Shakhnovich,et al.  Structural mining: self-consistent design on flexible protein-peptide docking and transferable binding affinity potential. , 2004, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[16]  Dima Kozakov,et al.  Detection of peptide‐binding sites on protein surfaces: The first step toward the modeling and targeting of peptide‐mediated interactions , 2013, Proteins.

[17]  Sonia Longhi,et al.  DisProt 7.0: a major update of the database of disordered proteins , 2016, Nucleic Acids Res..

[18]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  BindML/BindML+: Detecting Protein-Protein Interaction Interface Propensity from Amino Acid Substitution Patterns. , 2017, Methods in molecular biology.

[19]  Huan-Xiang Zhou,et al.  Intrinsic disorder: signaling via highly specific but short-lived association. , 2012, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[20]  Gianluca Pollastri,et al.  Porter, PaleAle 4.0: high-accuracy prediction of protein secondary structure and relative solvent accessibility , 2013, Bioinform..

[21]  Joost Schymkowitz,et al.  Protein-peptide complex prediction through fragment interaction patterns. , 2013, Structure.

[22]  Hasup Lee,et al.  GalaxyPepDock: a protein–peptide docking tool based on interaction similarity and energy optimization , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[23]  Martin Zacharias,et al.  Fully Blind Peptide-Protein Docking with pepATTRACT. , 2015, Structure.

[24]  Genki Terashi,et al.  Human and server docking prediction for CAPRI round 30‐35 using LZerD with combined scoring functions , 2017, Proteins.

[25]  Gerhard Wagner,et al.  Structural basis for negative regulation of hypoxia-inducible factor-1α by CITED2 , 2003, Nature Structural Biology.

[26]  Márton Miskei,et al.  FuzDB: database of fuzzy complexes, a tool to develop stochastic structure-function relationships for protein complexes and higher-order assemblies , 2016, Nucleic Acids Res..

[27]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  Protein-protein docking: from interaction to interactome. , 2014, Biophysical journal.

[28]  Daniel W. Kulp,et al.  Generalized Fragment Picking in Rosetta: Design, Protocols and Applications , 2011, PloS one.

[29]  R. Russell,et al.  Peptide-mediated interactions in biological systems: new discoveries and applications. , 2008, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[30]  Nir London,et al.  Peptide docking and structure-based characterization of peptide binding: from knowledge to know-how. , 2013, Current opinion in structural biology.

[31]  Peter E Wright,et al.  Interaction of the TAZ1 Domain of the CREB-Binding Protein with the Activation Domain of CITED2 , 2004, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[32]  H. Dyson,et al.  Intrinsically unstructured proteins: re-assessing the protein structure-function paradigm. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  B. Li,et al.  Rapid comparison of properties on protein surface , 2008, Proteins.

[34]  István Simon,et al.  Molecular principles of the interactions of disordered proteins. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  Partho Ghosh,et al.  Three-dimensional secretion signals in chaperone-effector complexes of bacterial pathogens. , 2002, Molecular cell.

[36]  Toby J. Gibson,et al.  ELM 2016—data update and new functionality of the eukaryotic linear motif resource , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[37]  L. Huang,et al.  Molecular mechanism of hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha -p300 interaction. A leucine-rich interface regulated by a single cysteine. , 2001, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[38]  Chengfei Yan,et al.  Fully Blind Docking at the Atomic Level for Protein-Peptide Complex Structure Prediction. , 2016, Structure.

[39]  D T Jones,et al.  Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[41]  Avraham Ben-Shimon,et al.  AnchorDock: Blind and Flexible Anchor-Driven Peptide Docking. , 2015, Structure.

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

[43]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou,et al.  Prediction of protein interaction sites from sequence profile and residue neighbor list , 2001, Proteins.

[44]  S. Wodak,et al.  Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods , 2003, Proteins.

[45]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Statistical mechanics‐based method to extract atomic distance‐dependent potentials from protein structures , 2011, Proteins.

[46]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Protein-protein docking using region-based 3D Zernike descriptors , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[47]  Ora Schueler-Furman,et al.  Modeling peptide-protein interactions. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[48]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[49]  Guoli Wang,et al.  PISCES: a protein sequence culling server , 2003, Bioinform..

[50]  Mateusz Kurcinski,et al.  CABS-dock web server for the flexible docking of peptides to proteins without prior knowledge of the binding site , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[51]  Marie-France Carlier,et al.  The β-Thymosin/WH2 Domain Structural Basis for the Switch from Inhibition to Promotion of Actin Assembly , 2004, Cell.

[52]  Urs Haberthür,et al.  FACTS: Fast analytical continuum treatment of solvation , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[53]  Robert B. Russell,et al.  PepSite: prediction of peptide-binding sites from protein surfaces , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[54]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  Fast procedure for reconstruction of full‐atom protein models from reduced representations , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[55]  Christopher J. Oldfield,et al.  Flexible nets: disorder and induced fit in the associations of p53 and 14-3-3 with their partners , 2008, BMC Genomics.

[56]  Jay W. Ponder,et al.  Analysis and Application of Potential Energy Smoothing and Search Methods for Global Optimization , 1998 .

[57]  Yifeng D. Yang,et al.  Multi‐LZerD: Multiple protein docking for asymmetric complexes , 2012, Proteins.

[58]  Dmitri I. Svergun,et al.  pE-DB: a database of structural ensembles of intrinsically disordered and of unfolded proteins , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[59]  D. Baker,et al.  Computational redesign of protein-protein interaction specificity , 2004, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[60]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou,et al.  Automated prediction of protein association rate constants. , 2011, Structure.

[61]  A Isacchi,et al.  Thermodynamics of the high-affinity interaction of TCF4 with β-catenin , 2001 .

[62]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  SSpro/ACCpro 5: almost perfect prediction of protein secondary structure and relative solvent accessibility using profiles, machine learning and structural similarity , 2014, Bioinform..

[63]  A. Kolinski,et al.  Coarse-Grained Protein Models and Their Applications. , 2016, Chemical reviews.

[64]  J. Skolnick,et al.  GOAP: a generalized orientation-dependent, all-atom statistical potential for protein structure prediction. , 2011, Biophysical journal.

[65]  Nir London,et al.  Rosetta FlexPepDock ab-initio: Simultaneous Folding, Docking and Refinement of Peptides onto Their Receptors , 2011, PloS one.

[66]  Monika Fuxreiter,et al.  Fuzzy complexes: Specific binding without complete folding , 2015, FEBS letters.

[67]  D. Kihara,et al.  A novel method for protein–protein interaction site prediction using phylogenetic substitution models , 2012, Proteins.

[68]  Nir London,et al.  Sub‐angstrom modeling of complexes between flexible peptides and globular proteins , 2010, Proteins.

[69]  Thomas L. Madden,et al.  Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. , 1997, Nucleic acids research.