An overview of data-driven HADDOCK strategies in CAPRI rounds 38-45

Our information-driven docking approach HADDOCK has demonstrated a sustained performance since the start of its participation to CAPRI. This is due, in part, to its ability to integrate data into the modelling process, and to the robustness of its scoring function. We participated in CAPRI both as server and as manual predictors. In CAPRI rounds 38-45, we have used various strategies depending on the information at hand. These ranged from imposing restraints to a few residues identified from literature as being important for the interaction, to binding pockets identified from homologous complexes or template-based refinement / CA-CA restraint-guided docking from identified templates. When relevant, symmetry restraints were used to limit the conformational sampling. We also tested for a large decamer target a new implementation of the MARTINI coarse-grained force field in HADDOCK. Overall in the current rounds, we obtained acceptable or better predictions for 13 and 11 server and manual submissions, respectively, out of the 22 interfaces. Our server performance (acceptable models) was better (59%) than the manual (50%) one, in which we typically experiment with various combinations of protocols and data sources. Again, our simple scoring function based on a linear combination of intermolecular van der Waals and electrostatic energies and an empirical desolvation term demonstrated a good performance in the scoring experiment with a 63% success rate across all 22 interfaces. An analysis of model quality indicates that, while we are consistently performing well in generating acceptable models, there is room for improvement for generating/identifying higher quality models.

[1]  Sandor Vajda,et al.  CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions , 2003, Proteins.

[2]  S. Wodak,et al.  Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures , 2005, Proteins.

[3]  David Baker,et al.  Protein structure prediction and analysis using the Robetta server , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[4]  Wei Li,et al.  RaptorX-Property: a web server for protein structure property prediction , 2016, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  Jan Stránský,et al.  Four crystal structures of human LLT1, a ligand of human NKR-P1, in varied glycosylation and oligomerization states , 2015, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

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

[7]  João P. G. L. M. Rodrigues,et al.  Less Is More: Coarse-Grained Integrative Modeling of Large Biomolecular Assemblies with HADDOCK , 2019, bioRxiv.

[8]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank , 2003, Nature Structural Biology.

[9]  M. Nellen,et al.  Sense and Simplicity in HADDOCK Scoring: Lessons from CASP‐CAPRI (page 418) , 2017, Proteins.

[10]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  Jan Dohnálek,et al.  Structure of the H107R variant of the extracellular domain of mouse NKR-P1A at 2.3 Å resolution. , 2011, Acta crystallographica. Section F, Structural biology and crystallization communications.

[12]  Susumu Uchiyama,et al.  Crystal structure of extracellular domain of human lectin‐like transcript 1 (LLT1), the ligand for natural killer receptor‐P1A , 2015, European journal of immunology.

[13]  Krishnan Ravikumar,et al.  dl‐Threoninium tri­chloro­acetate , 2004 .

[14]  Yang Zhang,et al.  I-TASSER server: new development for protein structure and function predictions , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[16]  Michelle L Coote,et al.  Molecular dynamics-driven drug discovery: leaping forward with confidence. , 2017, Drug discovery today.

[17]  Adam Godzik,et al.  FATCAT: a web server for flexible structure comparison and structure similarity searching , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[18]  Christof R Hauck,et al.  Helicobacter pylori adhesin HopQ engages in a virulence-enhancing interaction with human CEACAMs , 2016, Nature Microbiology.

[19]  T. Creighton Methods in Enzymology , 1968, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

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

[21]  Eric J. Deeds,et al.  Computational approaches to macromolecular interactions in the cell. , 2019, Current opinion in structural biology.

[22]  A. W. Schüttelkopf,et al.  PRODRG: a tool for high-throughput crystallography of protein-ligand complexes. , 2004, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[23]  J Schaarschmidt,et al.  An overview of data‐driven HADDOCK strategies in CAPRI rounds 38‐45 , 2019, Proteins.

[24]  Yang Zhang,et al.  The I-TASSER Suite: protein structure and function prediction , 2014, Nature Methods.

[25]  Benjamin A. Ellingson,et al.  Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Algorithm and Validation Using High Quality Structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

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

[28]  Amedeo Caflisch,et al.  Protein structure-based drug design: from docking to molecular dynamics. , 2018, Current opinion in structural biology.

[29]  Shuai Liu,et al.  D3R Grand Challenge 2: blind prediction of protein–ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies , 2017, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[30]  Yang Zhang,et al.  I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction , 2010, Nature Protocols.

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

[32]  Bryce K. Allen,et al.  Relative Binding Free Energy Calculations in Drug Discovery: Recent Advances and Practical Considerations , 2017, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  Adam Godzik,et al.  Flexible structure alignment by chaining aligned fragment pairs allowing twists , 2003, ECCB.

[34]  Shuai Liu,et al.  D3R grand challenge 2015: Evaluation of protein–ligand pose and affinity predictions , 2016, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[35]  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.

[36]  Lukas Zimmermann,et al.  A Completely Reimplemented MPI Bioinformatics Toolkit with a New HHpred Server at its Core. , 2017, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  R. Larson,et al.  The MARTINI Coarse-Grained Force Field: Extension to Proteins. , 2008, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

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

[39]  Gerrit Groenhof,et al.  GROMACS: Fast, flexible, and free , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[40]  G C P van Zundert,et al.  Sense and simplicity in HADDOCK scoring: Lessons from CASP‐CAPRI round 1 , 2016, Proteins.

[41]  W F Drew Bennett,et al.  Improved Parameters for the Martini Coarse-Grained Protein Force Field. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[42]  Y. Li,et al.  Structure of NKp65 bound to its keratinocyte ligand reveals basis for genetically linked recognition in natural killer gene complex , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[44]  David Baker,et al.  High-resolution comparative modeling with RosettaCM. , 2013, Structure.

[45]  Anna Vangone,et al.  Erratum: Sense and simplicity in HADDOCK scoring: Lessons from CASP-CAPRI round 1 : HADDOCK in CASP-CAPRI Round 1 (Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, (2017), 85, 3, (417-423), 10.1002/prot.25198) , 2017 .

[46]  Jian Peng,et al.  Template-based protein structure modeling using the RaptorX web server , 2012, Nature Protocols.

[47]  Jens Meiler,et al.  ROSETTA3: an object-oriented software suite for the simulation and design of macromolecules. , 2011, Methods in enzymology.

[48]  K. Maenaka,et al.  Molecular Basis for LLT1 Protein Recognition by Human CD161 Protein (NKRP1A/KLRB1) , 2011, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

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

[50]  Peter M. Kasson,et al.  GROMACS 4.5: a high-throughput and highly parallel open source molecular simulation toolkit , 2013, Bioinform..

[51]  Jan Dohnálek,et al.  Molecular architecture of mouse activating NKR-P1 receptors. , 2011, Journal of structural biology.

[52]  Annick Thomas,et al.  In silico predictions of 3D structures of linear and cyclic peptides with natural and non‐proteinogenic residues , 2012, Journal of peptide science : an official publication of the European Peptide Society.

[53]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  Template-based protein–protein docking exploiting pairwise interfacial residue restraints , 2016, Briefings Bioinform..

[54]  S. Wodak,et al.  Modeling protein–protein and protein–peptide complexes: CAPRI 6th edition , 2017, Proteins.