Pushing Structural Information into the Yeast Interactome by High-Throughput Protein Docking Experiments

The last several years have seen the consolidation of high-throughput proteomics initiatives to identify and characterize protein interactions and macromolecular complexes in model organisms. In particular, more that 10,000 high-confidence protein-protein interactions have been described between the roughly 6,000 proteins encoded in the budding yeast genome (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). However, unfortunately, high-resolution three-dimensional structures are only available for less than one hundred of these interacting pairs. Here, we expand this structural information on yeast protein interactions by running the first-ever high-throughput docking experiment with some of the best state-of-the-art methodologies, according to our benchmarks. To increase the coverage of the interaction space, we also explore the possibility of using homology models of varying quality in the docking experiments, instead of experimental structures, and assess how it would affect the global performance of the methods. In total, we have applied the docking procedure to 217 experimental structures and 1,023 homology models, providing putative structural models for over 3,000 protein-protein interactions in the yeast interactome. Finally, we analyze in detail the structural models obtained for the interaction between SAM1-anthranilate synthase complex and the MET30-RNA polymerase III to illustrate how our predictions can be straightforwardly used by the scientific community. The results of our experiment will be integrated into the general 3D-Repertoire pipeline, a European initiative to solve the structures of as many as possible protein complexes in yeast at the best possible resolution. All docking results are available at http://gatealoy.pcb.ub.es/HT_docking/.

[1]  Brian E Snydsman,et al.  Assigning function to yeast proteins by integration of technologies. , 2003, Molecular cell.

[2]  Carlos J Camacho,et al.  Successful discrimination of protein interactions , 2003, Proteins.

[3]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  High-resolution protein-protein docking. , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[4]  Solène Grosdidier,et al.  Prediction and scoring of docking poses with pyDock , 2007, Proteins.

[5]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry , 2002, Nature.

[6]  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.

[7]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Soft protein–protein docking in internal coordinates , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

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

[10]  James R. Knight,et al.  A Protein Interaction Map of Drosophila melanogaster , 2003, Science.

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

[12]  Marc A. Martí-Renom,et al.  MODBASE: a database of annotated comparative protein structure models and associated resources , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  Roberto Mosca,et al.  Alignment of protein structures in the presence of domain motions , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[14]  Hans-Werner Mewes,et al.  MPact: the MIPS protein interaction resource on yeast , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[15]  A. Barabasi,et al.  High-Quality Binary Protein Interaction Map of the Yeast Interactome Network , 2008, Science.

[16]  S. L. Wong,et al.  A Map of the Interactome Network of the Metazoan C. elegans , 2004, Science.

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

[18]  C. DeLisi,et al.  Determination of atomic desolvation energies from the structures of crystallized proteins. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[20]  C. Camacho,et al.  Modeling side‐chains using molecular dynamics improve recognition of binding region in CAPRI targets , 2005, Proteins.

[21]  A. Lesk,et al.  The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. , 1986, The EMBO journal.

[22]  S. L. Wong,et al.  Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network , 2005, Nature.

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

[24]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2006, Nature.

[25]  James R. Knight,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2000, Nature.

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

[27]  Narayanan Eswar,et al.  Protein structure modeling with MODELLER. , 2008, Methods in molecular biology.

[28]  P. Bork,et al.  Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery , 2006, Nature.

[29]  Sandor Vajda,et al.  Classification of protein complexes based on docking difficulty , 2005, Proteins.

[30]  T. Hughes,et al.  High-definition macromolecular composition of yeast RNA-processing complexes. , 2004, Molecular cell.

[31]  Z. Weng,et al.  Integrating statistical pair potentials into protein complex prediction , 2007, Proteins.

[32]  S. Vajda,et al.  Protein-protein docking: is the glass half-full or half-empty? , 2004, Trends in biotechnology.

[33]  Patrick Aloy,et al.  Incorporating high‐throughput proteomics experiments into structural biology pipelines: Identification of the low‐hanging fruits , 2008, Proteomics.

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

[35]  Gianni Cesareni,et al.  WI‐PHI: A weighted yeast interactome enriched for direct physical interactions , 2007, Proteomics.

[36]  Martin Vingron,et al.  IntAct: an open source molecular interaction database , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[37]  Z. Weng,et al.  Protein–protein docking benchmark version 3.0 , 2008, Proteins.

[38]  Arun K. Ramani,et al.  How complete are current yeast and human protein-interaction networks? , 2006, Genome Biology.

[39]  Adrian A Canutescu,et al.  A graph‐theory algorithm for rapid protein side‐chain prediction , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[40]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  Gabriele Ausiello,et al.  MINT: the Molecular INTeraction database , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[42]  Patrick Aloy,et al.  Contextual Specificity in Peptide-Mediated Protein Interactions , 2008, PloS one.

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

[44]  Z. Weng,et al.  Optimizing protein representations with information theory. , 2004, Genome informatics. International Conference on Genome Informatics.

[45]  R. Russell,et al.  The relationship between sequence and interaction divergence in proteins. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[47]  P. Bork,et al.  Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes , 2002, Nature.

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

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

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

[51]  P. Bork,et al.  Structure-Based Assembly of Protein Complexes in Yeast , 2004, Science.

[52]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  Inherent limitations in protein-protein docking procedures , 2007, Bioinform..

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

[54]  R. Abagyan,et al.  ICM‐DISCO docking by global energy optimization with fully flexible side‐chains , 2003, Proteins.

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

[56]  R. Ozawa,et al.  A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[57]  R. Russell,et al.  Targeting and tinkering with interaction networks. , 2008, Nature chemical biology.

[58]  David Botstein,et al.  SGD: Saccharomyces Genome Database , 1998, Nucleic Acids Res..

[59]  H. Lehrach,et al.  A Human Protein-Protein Interaction Network: A Resource for Annotating the Proteome , 2005, Cell.

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

[61]  Maxim Totrov,et al.  Improving CAPRI predictions: Optimized desolvation for rigid‐body docking , 2005, Proteins.

[62]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Protein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0 , 2010, Proteins.

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