Protein-protein docking using region-based 3D Zernike descriptors

BackgroundProtein-protein interactions are a pivotal component of many biological processes and mediate a variety of functions. Knowing the tertiary structure of a protein complex is therefore essential for understanding the interaction mechanism. However, experimental techniques to solve the structure of the complex are often found to be difficult. To this end, computational protein-protein docking approaches can provide a useful alternative to address this issue. Prediction of docking conformations relies on methods that effectively capture shape features of the participating proteins while giving due consideration to conformational changes that may occur.ResultsWe present a novel protein docking algorithm based on the use of 3D Zernike descriptors as regional features of molecular shape. The key motivation of using these descriptors is their invariance to transformation, in addition to a compact representation of local surface shape characteristics. Docking decoys are generated using geometric hashing, which are then ranked by a scoring function that incorporates a buried surface area and a novel geometric complementarity term based on normals associated with the 3D Zernike shape description. Our docking algorithm was tested on both bound and unbound cases in the ZDOCK benchmark 2.0 dataset. In 74% of the bound docking predictions, our method was able to find a near-native solution (interface C-α RMSD ≤ 2.5 Å) within the top 1000 ranks. For unbound docking, among the 60 complexes for which our algorithm returned at least one hit, 60% of the cases were ranked within the top 2000. Comparison with existing shape-based docking algorithms shows that our method has a better performance than the others in unbound docking while remaining competitive for bound docking cases.ConclusionWe show for the first time that the 3D Zernike descriptors are adept in capturing shape complementarity at the protein-protein interface and useful for protein docking prediction. Rigorous benchmark studies show that our docking approach has a superior performance compared to existing methods.

[1]  Eran Eyal,et al.  Importance of solvent accessibility and contact surfaces in modeling side‐chain conformations in proteins , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[2]  Lora Mak,et al.  An extension of spherical harmonics to region-based rotationally invariant descriptors for molecular shape description and comparison. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[3]  A. Gorin,et al.  Protein docking using surface matching and supervised machine learning , 2007, Proteins.

[4]  J. Skolnick,et al.  TOUCHSTONE: An ab initio protein structure prediction method that uses threading-based tertiary restraints , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Nikolaos Canterakis,et al.  3D Zernike Moments and Zernike Affine Invariants for 3D Image Analysis and Recognition , 1999 .

[6]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics , 2002, Proteins.

[7]  Ilya Blayvas,et al.  Rehashing for Bayesian geometric hashing , 2004, ICPR 2004.

[8]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Taking geometry to its edge: Fast unbound rigid (and hinge‐bent) docking , 2003, Proteins.

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

[10]  A. R. Edmonds.  Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics , 1957 .

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

[12]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Parameter Setting in Evolutionary Algorithms , 2007, Studies in Computational Intelligence.

[13]  Kenneth M. Merz,et al.  Rapid approximation to molecular surface area via the use of Boolean logic and look‐up tables , 1993, J. Comput. Chem..

[14]  Martin Zacharias,et al.  ATTRACT: Protein–protein docking in CAPRI using a reduced protein model , 2005, Proteins.

[15]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Principles of flexible protein–protein docking , 2008, Proteins.

[16]  Jake Y. Chen,et al.  Biological Data Mining , 2009 .

[17]  David W Ritchie,et al.  Recent progress and future directions in protein-protein docking. , 2008, Current protein & peptide science.

[18]  T. Schlick.  Molecular modeling and simulation , 2002 .

[19]  Marcin Król,et al.  Implicit flexibility in protein docking: Cross‐docking and local refinement , 2007, Proteins.

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

[21]  J. Thornton,et al.  Shape variation in protein binding pockets and their ligands. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  David Baker,et al.  Macromolecular modeling with rosetta. , 2008, Annual review of biochemistry.

[23]  M L Connolly,et al.  Shape distributions of protein topography , 1992, Biopolymers.

[24]  Frank Alber,et al.  A structural perspective on protein-protein interactions. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[25]  Hans-Georg Beyer,et al.  Self-Adaptation in Evolutionary Algorithms , 2007, Parameter Setting in Evolutionary Algorithms.

[26]  Mohammed J. Zaki,et al.  Context shapes: Efficient complementary shape matching for protein–protein docking , 2008, Proteins.

[27]  D. Ritchie,et al.  Protein docking using spherical polar Fourier correlations , 2000, Proteins.

[28]  S. Umeyama,et al.  Least-Squares Estimation of Transformation Parameters Between Two Point Patterns , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[29]  Michael J. E. Sternberg,et al.  3D-Garden: a system for modelling protein-protein complexes based on conformational refinement of ensembles generated with the marching cubes algorithm , 2008, Bioinform..

[30]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  Docking of protein models , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[31]  Harry Dym,et al.  Fourier series and integrals , 1972 .

[32]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

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

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

[35]  M. Nilges,et al.  Complementarity of structure ensembles in protein-protein binding. , 2004, Structure.

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

[37]  K. Misura,et al.  PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 59:15–29 (2005) Progress and Challenges in High-Resolution Refinement of Protein Structure Models , 2022 .

[38]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Computational methods of analysis of protein-protein interactions. , 2003, Current opinion in structural biology.

[39]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  3D-SURFER: software for high-throughput protein surface comparison and analysis , 2009, Bioinform..

[40]  Jianpeng Ma,et al.  CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[41]  S. Kim,et al.  "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[42]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A Gaussian Description of Molecular Shape , 1995 .

[43]  R. Nussinov,et al.  A geometry-based suite of molecular docking processes. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[44]  Jie Liang,et al.  Predicting Protein Function and Binding Profile via Matching of Local Evolutionary and Geometric Surface Patterns , 2009 .

[45]  Philip E. Bourne,et al.  Multipolar representation of protein structure , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[46]  A. Kolinski.  Protein modeling and structure prediction with a reduced representation. , 2004, Acta biochimica Polonica.

[47]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  Benchmarking of TASSER_2.0: an improved protein structure prediction algorithm with more accurate predicted contact restraints. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[48]  Haim J. Wolfson,et al.  Geometric hashing: an overview , 1997 .

[49]  M. L. Connolly.  Shape complementarity at the hemoglobin alpha 1 beta 1 subunit interface. , 1986, Biopolymers.

[50]  Marcin Novotni,et al.  3D zernike descriptors for content based shape retrieval , 2003, SM '03.

[51]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Flexible protein-protein docking. , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[52]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Local surface shape-based protein function prediction using Zernike descriptors , 2009 .

[53]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  The effect of resolution‐dependent global shape modifications on rigid‐body protein–protein docking , 2005, Proteins.

[54]  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.

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

[56]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Protein Surface Representation and Comparison: New Approaches in Structural Proteomics , 2011 .

[57]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Automated docking of peptides and proteins by using a genetic algorithm combined with a tabu search. , 1999, Protein engineering.

[58]  Rebecca C. Wade,et al.  Effective Charges for Macromolecules in Solvent , 1996 .

[59]  M. L. Connolly.  Shape complementarity at the hemoglobin α1β1 subunit interface , 1986 .

[60]  Michel Sanner,et al.  Shape complementarity of protein–protein complexes at multiple resolutions , 2009, Proteins.

[61]  David W. Ritchie,et al.  Accelerating and focusing protein-protein docking correlations using multi-dimensional rotational FFT generating functions , 2008, Bioinform..

[62]  Eleanor J. Gardiner,et al.  Protein docking using a genetic algorithm , 2001, Proteins.

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

[64]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces , 1994, Biopolymers.

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

[66]  Marc Parizeau,et al.  Genericity in Evolutionary Computation Software Tools: Principles and Case-study , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[67]  Bin Li,et al.  Fast protein tertiary structure retrieval based on global surface shape similarity , 2008, Proteins.

[68]  Christopher I. Bayly,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the "Early Recognition" Problem , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[69]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Potential for Protein Surface Shape Analysis Using Spherical Harmonics and 3D Zernike Descriptors , 2009, Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics.

[70]  Michèle Sebag,et al.  ROC-Based Evolutionary Learning: Application to Medical Data Mining , 2003, Artificial Evolution.

[71]  Bin Li,et al.  Characterization of local geometry of protein surfaces with the visibility criterion , 2008, Proteins.

[72]  Sunil Arya,et al.  An optimal algorithm for approximate nearest neighbor searching fixed dimensions , 1998, JACM.

[73]  Michael Georgiopoulos,et al.  Using self-organizing maps to learn geometric hash functions for model-based object recognition , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[74]  J. Skolnick,et al.  Prediction of physical protein–protein interactions , 2005, Physical biology.

[75]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  ProFunc: a server for predicting protein function from 3D structure , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[77]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  PatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[78]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Characterization and Classification of Local Protein Surfaces Using Self-Organizing Map , 2010, Int. J. Knowl. Discov. Bioinform..

[79]  Patrick Aloy,et al.  Ten thousand interactions for the molecular biologist , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.