Protein Docking by the Interface Structure Similarity: How Much Structure Is Needed?

The increasing availability of co-crystallized protein-protein complexes provides an opportunity to use template-based modeling for protein-protein docking. Structure alignment techniques are useful in detection of remote target-template similarities. The size of the structure involved in the alignment is important for the success in modeling. This paper describes a systematic large-scale study to find the optimal definition/size of the interfaces for the structure alignment-based docking applications. The results showed that structural areas corresponding to the cutoff values <12 Å across the interface inadequately represent structural details of the interfaces. With the increase of the cutoff beyond 12 Å, the success rate for the benchmark set of 99 protein complexes, did not increase significantly for higher accuracy models, and decreased for lower-accuracy models. The 12 Å cutoff was optimal in our interface alignment-based docking, and a likely best choice for the large-scale (e.g., on the scale of the entire genome) applications to protein interaction networks. The results provide guidelines for the docking approaches, including high-throughput applications to modeled structures.

[1]  Hui Lu,et al.  MULTIPROSPECTOR: An algorithm for the prediction of protein–protein interactions by multimeric threading , 2002, Proteins.

[2]  Jie Liang,et al.  Protein surface analysis for function annotation in high‐throughput structural genomics pipeline , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[4]  Lei Xie,et al.  Using multiple structure alignments, fast model building, and energetic analysis in fold recognition and homology modeling , 2003, Proteins.

[5]  Ilya A. Vakser,et al.  A simple shape characteristic of protein-protein recognition , 2007, Bioinform..

[6]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Prediction of protein–protein interactions: unifying evolution and structure at protein interfaces , 2011, Physical biology.

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

[8]  J. Skolnick,et al.  TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

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

[10]  Liisa Holm,et al.  Advances and pitfalls of protein structural alignment. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[11]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Large-scale assessment of the utility of low-resolution protein structures for biochemical function assignment , 2004, Bioinform..

[12]  Andrey Tovchigrechko,et al.  The size of the intermolecular energy funnel in protein–protein interactions , 2008, Proteins.

[13]  J. Skolnick,et al.  New benchmark metrics for protein‐protein docking methods , 2011, Proteins.

[14]  Martin Zacharias,et al.  Accounting for conformational changes during protein-protein docking. , 2010, Current opinion in structural biology.

[15]  Frank Alber,et al.  Structural Modeling of Protein Interactions by Analogy: Application to PSD-95 , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[16]  Emil Alexov,et al.  Homology-based modeling of 3D structures of protein-protein complexes using alignments of modified sequence profiles. , 2008, International journal of biological macromolecules.

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

[18]  Tal Pupko,et al.  Structural Genomics , 2005 .

[19]  Emil Alexov,et al.  Predicting 3D structures of transient protein-protein complexes by homology. , 2006, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

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

[21]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  Predicting 3D structures of protein-protein complexes. , 2008, Current pharmaceutical biotechnology.

[22]  Raquel Norel,et al.  Protein interface conservation across structure space , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Andreas Hoppe,et al.  Docking without docking: ISEARCH—prediction of interactions using known interfaces , 2007, Proteins.

[24]  Gideon Schreiber,et al.  The molecular architecture of protein-protein binding sites. , 2005, Current opinion in structural biology.

[25]  Rohita Sinha,et al.  Docking by structural similarity at protein‐protein interfaces , 2010, Proteins.

[26]  A. Sali,et al.  Localization of binding sites in protein structures by optimization of a composite scoring function , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[27]  Rodrigo Lopez,et al.  Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0 , 2007, Bioinform..

[28]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Similar binding sites and different partners: implications to shared proteins in cellular pathways. , 2007, Structure.

[29]  Laurie E. Grove,et al.  Structural conservation of druggable hot spots in protein–protein interfaces , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  PRISM: protein-protein interaction prediction by structural matching. , 2008, Methods in molecular biology.

[31]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interactions by combining structure and sequence conservation in protein interfaces , 2005, Bioinform..

[32]  Jacquelyn S Fetrow,et al.  Structure-based active site profiles for genome analysis and functional family subclassification. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  B. Rost,et al.  Predicted protein–protein interaction sites from local sequence information , 2003, FEBS letters.

[34]  Angela D. Wilkins,et al.  Sequence and structure continuity of evolutionary importance improves protein functional site discovery and annotation , 2010, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[36]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Optimal docking area: A new method for predicting protein–protein interaction sites , 2004, Proteins.

[37]  Dominique Douguet,et al.  DOCKGROUND system of databases for protein recognition studies: Unbound structures for docking , 2007, Proteins.

[38]  Robert B Russell,et al.  Finding functional sites in structural genomics proteins. , 2004, Structure.

[39]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Automated prediction of protein function and detection of functional sites from structure. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Architectures and functional coverage of protein-protein interfaces. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  J. Skolnick,et al.  Access the most recent version at doi: 10.1110/ps.49201 References , 2000 .

[42]  P Willett,et al.  Use of techniques derived from graph theory to compare secondary structure motifs in proteins. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[44]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  PRISM: protein interactions by structural matching , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[45]  Dusanka Janezic,et al.  ProBiS algorithm for detection of structurally similar protein binding sites by local structural alignment , 2010, Bioinform..

[46]  Petras J. Kundrotas,et al.  Accuracy of Protein-Protein Binding Sites in High-Throughput Template-Based Modeling , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[47]  T. Earnest,et al.  From words to literature in structural proteomics , 2003, Nature.

[48]  Dominique Douguet,et al.  DOCKGROUND resource for studying protein-protein interfaces , 2006, Bioinform..

[49]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality , 2004, Proteins.