Refinement of unbound protein docking studies using biological knowledge

In this work we present two methods for the reranking of protein–protein docking studies. One scoring method searches the InterDom database for domains that are available in the proteins to be docked and evaluates the interaction of these domains in other complexes of known structure. The second one analyzes the interface of each proposed conformation with regard to the conservation of Phe, Met, and Trp and their polar neighbor residues. The special relevance of these residues is based on a publication by Ma et al. ( Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:5772–5777 ), who compared the conservation of all residues in the interface region to the conservation on the rest of the protein's surface. The scoring functions were tested on 30 unbound docking test cases. The evaluation of the methods is based on the ability to rerank the output of a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) docking. Both were able to improve the ranking of the docking output. The best improvement was achieved for enzyme–inhibitor examples. Especially the domain‐based scoring function was successful and able to place a near‐native solution on one of the first six ranks for 13 of 17 (76%) enzyme–inhibitor complexes [in 53% (nine complexes) even on the first rank]. The method evaluating residue conservation allowed us to increase the number of good solutions within the first 100 ranks out of ∼9000 in 82% of the 17 enzyme–inhibitor test cases, and for seven (41%) out of 17 enzyme–inhibitor complexes, a near native solution was placed within the first seven ranks. Proteins 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  Robert S. Ledley,et al.  The Protein Information Resource , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[4]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Three-dimensional cluster analysis identifies interfaces and functional residue clusters in proteins. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  N. Ben-Tal,et al.  ConSurf: an algorithmic tool for the identification of functional regions in proteins by surface mapping of phylogenetic information. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  Daniel R. Caffrey,et al.  Are protein–protein interfaces more conserved in sequence than the rest of the protein surface? , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[7]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Conservation of polar residues as hot spots at protein interfaces , 2000, Proteins.

[8]  Olav Zimmermann.  Untersuchungen zur Vorhersage der nativen Orientierung von Protein-Komplexen mit Fourier-Korrelationsmethoden , 2003 .

[9]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Automated structure-based prediction of functional sites in proteins: applications to assessing the validity of inheriting protein function from homology in genome annotation and to protein docking. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  J. Thompson,et al.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[11]  F. Cohen,et al.  An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  S. Jones,et al.  Analysis of protein-protein interaction sites using surface patches. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  Sarah A. Teichmann,et al.  Principles of protein-protein interactions , 2002, ECCB.

[14]  Cathy H. Wu,et al.  UniProt: the Universal Protein knowledgebase , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[15]  S. Henikoff,et al.  Amino acid substitution matrices. , 2000, Advances in protein chemistry.

[16]  A. Valencia,et al.  Correlated mutations contain information about protein-protein interaction. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  A. Valencia,et al.  Automatic methods for predicting functionally important residues. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[18]  S. Vajda,et al.  Scoring docked conformations generated by rigid‐body protein‐protein docking , 2000, Proteins.

[19]  P Argos,et al.  Hydrophobic patches on the surfaces of protein structures , 1996, Proteins.

[20]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Protein–protein interactions: Structurally conserved residues distinguish between binding sites and exposed protein surfaces , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

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

[23]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Protein-protein interfaces: architectures and interactions in protein-protein interfaces and in protein cores. Their similarities and differences. , 1996, Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology.

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

[25]  Michael J E Sternberg,et al.  Evaluation of the 3D‐Dock protein docking suite in rounds 1 and 2 of the CAPRI blind trial , 2003, Proteins.

[26]  Rolf Apweiler,et al.  The SWISS-PROT protein sequence database and its supplement TrEMBL in 2000 , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[27]  A. Bogan,et al.  Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  S. Jones,et al.  Protein domain interfaces: characterization and comparison with oligomeric protein interfaces. , 2000, Protein engineering.

[29]  Rolf Apweiler,et al.  The SWISS-PROT protein sequence data bank and its supplement TrEMBL , 1997, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[31]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou,et al.  Prediction of protein interaction sites from sequence profile and residue neighbor list , 2001, Proteins.

[32]  R. Raz,et al.  ProMate: a structure based prediction program to identify the location of protein-protein binding sites. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Hydrogen bonds and salt bridges across protein-protein interfaces. , 1997, Protein engineering.

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

[35]  J M Thornton,et al.  Protein-protein interactions: a review of protein dimer structures. , 1995, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

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

[37]  J. Thornton,et al.  Protein–protein interfaces: Analysis of amino acid conservation in homodimers , 2001, Proteins.

[38]  Shoshana J Wodak,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interactions: the CAPRI experiment, its evaluation and implications. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[39]  C. Chothia,et al.  The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[40]  J. Janin,et al.  Dissecting protein–protein recognition sites , 2002, Proteins.

[41]  Sean R. Eddy,et al.  Profile hidden Markov models , 1998, Bioinform..

[42]  See-Kiong Ng,et al.  InterDom: a database of putative interacting protein domains for validating predicted protein interactions and complexes , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[43]  Patrick Aloy,et al.  The third dimension for protein interactions and complexes. , 2002, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[44]  C. Chothia,et al.  The structure of protein-protein recognition sites. , 1990, The Journal of biological chemistry.

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