Shape complementarity of protein–protein complexes at multiple resolutions

Biological complexes typically exhibit intermolecular interfaces of high shape complementarity. Many computational docking approaches use this surface complementarity as a guide in the search for predicting the structures of protein–protein complexes. Proteins often undergo conformational changes to create a highly complementary interface when associating. These conformational changes are a major cause of failure for automated docking procedures when predicting binding modes between proteins using their unbound conformations. Low resolution surfaces in which high frequency geometric details are omitted have been used to address this problem. These smoothed, or blurred, surfaces are expected to minimize the differences between free and bound structures, especially those that are due to side chain conformations or small backbone deviations. Despite the fact that this approach has been used in many docking protocols, there has yet to be a systematic study of the effects of such surface smoothing on the shape complementarity of the resulting interfaces. Here we investigate this question by computing shape complementarity of a set of 66 protein–protein complexes represented by multiresolution blurred surfaces. Complexed and unbound structures are available for these protein–protein complexes. They are a subset of complexes from a nonredundant docking benchmark selected for rigidity (i.e. the proteins undergo limited conformational changes between their bound and unbound states). In this work, we construct the surfaces by isocontouring a density map obtained by accumulating the densities of Gaussian functions placed at all atom centers of the molecule. The smoothness or resolution is specified by a Gaussian fall‐off coefficient, termed “blobbyness.” Shape complementarity is quantified using a histogram of the shortest distances between two proteins' surface mesh vertices for both the crystallographic complexes and the complexes built using the protein structures in their unbound conformation. The histograms calculated for the bound complex structures demonstrate that medium resolution smoothing (blobbyness = −0.9) can reproduce about 88% of the shape complementarity of atomic resolution surfaces. Complexes formed from the free component structures show a partial loss of shape complementarity (more overlaps and gaps) with the atomic resolution surfaces. For surfaces smoothed to low resolution (blobbyness = −0.3), we find more consistency of shape complementarity between the complexed and free cases. To further reduce bad contacts without significantly impacting the good contacts we introduce another blurred surface, in which the Gaussian densities of flexible atoms are reduced. From these results we discuss the use of shape complementarity in protein–protein docking. Proteins 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  David Eberly,et al.  On gray scale image measurements : II. Surface area and volume , 1991, CVGIP Graph. Model. Image Process..

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

[3]  A. Olson,et al.  Shape analysis of molecular surfaces , 1993, Biopolymers.

[4]  R. Bywater,et al.  A quantitative representation of molecular surface shape. I: Theory and development of the method , 1994 .

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

[6]  Jean-Claude Spehner,et al.  Fast and robust computation of molecular surfaces , 1995, SCG '95.

[7]  D. Schomburg,et al.  Hydrogen bonding and molecular surface shape complementarity as a basis for protein docking. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Role of water mediated interactions in protein-protein recognition landscapes. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[9]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Solid shape , 1990 .

[10]  Richard A. Friesner,et al.  What role do surfaces play in GB models? A new‐generation of surface‐generalized born model based on a novel gaussian surface for biomolecules , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

[11]  J. Andrew Grant,et al.  A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[13]  Shan Zhao,et al.  Minimal molecular surfaces and their applications , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[15]  G. Vriend,et al.  Prediction of protein conformational freedom from distance constraints , 1997, Proteins.

[16]  Robert Bywater,et al.  Description of molecular surface shape using Fourier descriptors , 1988 .

[17]  I. Vakser,et al.  A systematic study of low-resolution recognition in protein--protein complexes. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  A. Olson,et al.  Approximation and characterization of molecular surfaces , 1993, Biopolymers.

[19]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Examination of shape complementarity in docking of Unbound proteins , 1999, Proteins.

[20]  I. Vakser Low-resolution docking: prediction of complexes for underdetermined structures. , 1998, Biopolymers.

[21]  Jörg Weiser,et al.  Optimization of Gaussian surface calculations and extension to solvent-accessible surface areas , 1999, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[23]  A. Olson,et al.  The tissue factor/factor VIIa/factor Xa complex: A model built by docking and site‐directed mutagenesis , 2003, Proteins.

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

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

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

[27]  James F. Blinn,et al.  A Generalization of Algebraic Surface Drawing , 1982, TOGS.

[28]  Valerio Pascucci,et al.  Accelerated IsoContouring of Scalar Fields , 1998 .

[29]  R C Wade,et al.  Analytically defined surfaces to analyze molecular interaction properties. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[30]  David W. Ritchie,et al.  Fast computation, rotation, and comparison of low resolution spherical harmonic molecular surfaces , 1999, Journal of Computational Chemistry.

[31]  A Tramontano,et al.  PUZZLE: a new method for automated protein docking based on surface shape complementarity. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  Nelson L. Max,et al.  Spherical harmonic molecular surfaces , 1988, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[33]  D. Ritchie,et al.  Evaluation of Protein Docking Predictions Using Hex 3.1 in CAPRI Rounds 1{2 , 2002 .

[34]  Frédéric Cazals,et al.  Revisiting the description of Protein-Protein interfaces. Part II: Experimental study , 2006 .

[35]  Vinay Siddavanahalli,et al.  Compressed representations of macromolecular structures and properties. , 2005, Structure.

[36]  Jürgen Brickmann,et al.  Determination of the interfacial water content in protein-protein complexes from free energy simulations. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

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

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

[39]  I. Vakser Protein docking for low-resolution structures. , 1995, Protein engineering.

[40]  M. L. Connolly Analytical molecular surface calculation , 1983 .

[41]  Valerio Pascucci,et al.  Fast isocontouring for improved interactivity , 1996, VVS '96.

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

[43]  M Eisenstein,et al.  Effect of local shape modifications of molecular surfaces on rigid-body protein-protein docking. , 2003, Protein engineering.

[44]  J. A. Grant,et al.  Gaussian docking functions. , 2003, Biopolymers.

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