Ranking multiple docking solutions based on the conservation of inter‐residue contacts

Molecular docking is the method of choice for investigating the molecular basis of recognition in a large number of functional protein complexes. However, correctly scoring the obtained docking solutions (decoys) to rank native‐like (NL) conformations in the top positions is still an open problem. Herein we present CONSRANK, a simple and effective tool to rank multiple docking solutions, which relies on the conservation of inter‐residue contacts in the analyzed decoys ensemble. First it calculates a conservation rate for each inter‐residue contact, then it ranks decoys according to their ability to match the more frequently observed contacts. We applied CONSRANK to 102 targets from three different benchmarks, RosettaDock, DOCKGROUND, and Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI). The method performs consistently well, both in terms of NL solutions ranked in the top positions and of values of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Its ideal application is to solutions coming from different docking programs and procedures, as in the case of CAPRI targets. For all the analyzed CAPRI targets where a comparison is feasible, CONSRANK outperforms the CAPRI scorers. The fraction of NL solutions in the top ten positions in the RosettaDock, DOCKGROUND, and CAPRI benchmarks is enriched on average by a factor of 3.0, 1.9, and 9.9, respectively. Interestingly, CONSRANK is also able to specifically single out the high/medium quality (HMQ) solutions from the docking decoys ensemble: it ranks 46.2 and 70.8% of the total HMQ solutions available for the RosettaDock and CAPRI targets, respectively, within the top 20 positions. Proteins 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Scoring protein interaction decoys using exposed residues (SPIDER): A novel multibody interaction scoring function based on frequent geometric patterns of interfacial residues , 2012, Proteins.

[2]  Ying Gao,et al.  DOCKGROUND protein-protein docking decoy set , 2008, Bioinform..

[3]  Ilya A. Vakser,et al.  DECK: Distance and environment-dependent, coarse-grained, knowledge-based potentials for protein-protein docking , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[4]  S. Wodak,et al.  Docking and scoring protein complexes: CAPRI 3rd Edition , 2007, Proteins.

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

[6]  Debnath Pal,et al.  Using correlated parameters for improved ranking of protein–protein docking decoys , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[7]  Dietmar Schomburg,et al.  Efficient comprehensive scoring of docked protein complexes using probabilistic support vector machines , 2007, Proteins.

[8]  R C Wade,et al.  Simulation of the diffusional association of barnase and barstar. , 1997, Biophysical journal.

[9]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Towards the prediction of protein interaction partners using physical docking , 2011, Molecular systems biology.

[10]  Julie Bernauer,et al.  A Collaborative Filtering Approach for Protein-Protein Docking Scoring Functions , 2011, PloS one.

[11]  Anna Vangone,et al.  CONS-COCOMAPS: a novel tool to measure and visualize the conservation of inter-residue contacts in multiple docking solutions , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[12]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou,et al.  Electrostatic rate enhancement and transient complex of protein–protein association , 2008, Proteins.

[13]  Jérôme Azé,et al.  A new protein-protein docking scoring function based on interface residue properties , 2007, Bioinform..

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

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

[16]  Joël Janin,et al.  The targets of CAPRI Rounds 13–19 , 2010, Proteins.

[17]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  FireDock: Fast interaction refinement in molecular docking , 2007, Proteins.

[18]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Performance of ZDOCK and ZRANK in CAPRI rounds 13–19 , 2010, Proteins.

[19]  Juan Fernández-Recio,et al.  Cell biology: Brief encounters bolster contacts , 2006, Nature.

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

[21]  Yaoqi Zhou,et al.  Specific interactions for ab initio folding of protein terminal regions with secondary structures , 2008, Proteins.

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

[23]  Andrzej Kloczkowski,et al.  Combining statistical potentials with dynamics-based entropies improves selection from protein decoys and docking poses. , 2012, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[24]  J. Gonzalez,et al.  Scoring docking models with evolutionary information , 2005, Proteins.

[25]  Xiaofan Li,et al.  Detection and refinement of encounter complexes for protein–protein docking: Taking account of macromolecular crowding , 2010, Proteins.

[26]  Marc F Lensink,et al.  Docking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009 , 2010, Proteins.

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

[28]  D. Baker,et al.  Clustering of low-energy conformations near the native structures of small proteins. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  Marc F Lensink,et al.  Blind predictions of protein interfaces by docking calculations in CAPRI , 2010, Proteins.

[30]  Joël Janin,et al.  The third CAPRI assessment meeting Toronto, Canada, April 20-21, 2007. , 2007, Structure.

[31]  Colin Kleanthous,et al.  Molecular mimicry enables competitive recruitment by a natively disordered protein. , 2007, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[32]  G. Marius Clore,et al.  Visualization of transient encounter complexes in protein–protein association , 2006, Nature.

[33]  Libin Cao,et al.  Protein–protein docking with binding site patch prediction and network‐based terms enhanced combinatorial scoring , 2010, Proteins.

[34]  Yaoqi Zhou,et al.  Consensus scoring for enriching near‐native structures from protein–protein docking decoys , 2009, Proteins.

[35]  Vittorio Scarano,et al.  COCOMAPS: a web application to analyze and visualize contacts at the interface of biomolecular complexes , 2011, Bioinform..

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

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

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

[39]  Rainer Merkl,et al.  PROCOS: Computational analysis of protein–protein complexes , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..