Exploring the interplay between experimental methods and the performance of predictors of binding affinity change upon mutations in protein complexes.

Reliable prediction of binding affinity changes (ΔΔG) upon mutations in protein complexes relies not only on the performance of computational methods but also on the availability and quality of experimental data. Binding affinity changes can be measured by various experimental methods with different accuracies and limitations. To understand the impact of these on the prediction of binding affinity change, we present the Database of binding Affinity Change Upon Mutation (DACUM), a database of 1872 binding affinity changes upon single-point mutations, a subset of the SKEMPI database (Moal,I.H. and Fernández-Recio,J. Bioinformatics, 2012;28:2600-2607) extended with information on the experimental methods used for ΔΔG measurements. The ΔΔG data were classified into different data sets based on the experimental method used and the position of the mutation (interface and non-interface). We tested the prediction performance of the original HADDOCK score, a newly trained version of it and mutation Cutoff Scanning Matrix (Pires,D.E.V., Ascher,D.B. and Blundell,T.L. Bioinformatics 2014;30:335-342), one of the best reported ΔΔG predictors so far, on these various data sets. Our results demonstrate a strong impact of the experimental methods on the performance of binding affinity change predictors for protein complexes. This underscores the importance of properly considering and carefully choosing experimental methods in the development of novel binding affinity change predictors. The DACUM database is available online at https://github.com/haddocking/DACUM.

[1]  A. Panchenko,et al.  Predicting the Impact of Missense Mutations on Protein–Protein Binding Affinity , 2014, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[2]  W. Stites,et al.  Protein−Protein Interactions: Interface Structure, Binding Thermodynamics, and Mutational Analysis , 1997 .

[3]  Jack Snoeyink,et al.  MolProbity: all-atom contacts and structure validation for proteins and nucleic acids , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[4]  Philip M. Kim,et al.  Combining Structural Modeling with Ensemble Machine Learning to Accurately Predict Protein Fold Stability and Binding Affinity Effects upon Mutation , 2014, PloS one.

[5]  Daniel F. A. R. Dourado,et al.  A multiscale approach to predicting affinity changes in protein–protein interfaces , 2014, Proteins.

[6]  Z. Weng,et al.  A structure‐based benchmark for protein–protein binding affinity , 2011, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[7]  Anna Vangone,et al.  Contacts-based prediction of binding affinity in protein–protein complexes , 2015, eLife.

[8]  Douglas E. V. Pires,et al.  mCSM: predicting the effects of mutations in proteins using graph-based signatures , 2013, Bioinform..

[9]  P. Kastritis,et al.  On the binding affinity of macromolecular interactions: daring to ask why proteins interact , 2013, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

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

[11]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Predicting the Effect of Mutations on Protein-Protein Binding Interactions through Structure-Based Interface Profiles , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[12]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Are scoring functions in protein-protein docking ready to predict interactomes? Clues from a novel binding affinity benchmark. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

[13]  E. Levy.  A simple definition of structural regions in proteins and its use in analyzing interface evolution. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  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.

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

[16]  Juan Fernández-Recio,et al.  SKEMPI: a Structural Kinetic and Energetic database of Mutant Protein Interactions and its use in empirical models , 2012, Bioinform..

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

[18]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Prediction of homoprotein and heteroprotein complexes by protein docking and template‐based modeling: A CASP‐CAPRI experiment , 2016, Proteins.

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

[20]  Marianne Rooman,et al.  BeAtMuSiC: prediction of changes in protein–protein binding affinity on mutations , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[21]  J. Fernández-Recio,et al.  Intermolecular Contact Potentials for Protein-Protein Interactions Extracted from Binding Free Energy Changes upon Mutation. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.