Conformer selection and induced fit in flexible backbone protein-protein docking using computational and NMR ensembles.

Accommodating backbone flexibility continues to be the most difficult challenge in computational docking of protein-protein complexes. Towards that end, we simulate four distinct biophysical models of protein binding in RosettaDock, a multiscale Monte-Carlo-based algorithm that uses a quasi-kinetic search process to emulate the diffusional encounter of two proteins and to identify low-energy complexes. The four binding models are as follows: (1) key-lock (KL) model, using rigid-backbone docking; (2) conformer selection (CS) model, using a novel ensemble docking algorithm; (3) induced fit (IF) model, using energy-gradient-based backbone minimization; and (4) combined conformer selection/induced fit (CS/IF) model. Backbone flexibility was limited to the smaller partner of the complex, structural ensembles were generated using Rosetta refinement methods, and docking consisted of local perturbations around the complexed conformation using unbound component crystal structures for a set of 21 target complexes. The lowest-energy structure contained >30% of the native residue-residue contacts for 9, 13, 13, and 14 targets for KL, CS, IF, and CS/IF docking, respectively. When applied to 15 targets using nuclear magnetic resonance ensembles of the smaller protein, the lowest-energy structure recovered at least 30% native residue contacts in 3, 8, 4, and 8 targets for KL, CS, IF, and CS/IF docking, respectively. CS/IF docking of the nuclear magnetic resonance ensemble performed equally well or better than KL docking with the unbound crystal structure in 10 of 15 cases. The marked success of CS and CS/IF docking shows that ensemble docking can be a versatile and effective method for accommodating conformational plasticity in docking and serves as a demonstration for the CS theory--that binding-competent conformers exist in the unbound ensemble and can be selected based on their favorable binding energies.

[1]  M. Nilges,et al.  Complementarity of structure ensembles in protein-protein binding. , 2004, Structure.

[2]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Insight into molecular interactions between two PB1 domains. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[4]  Marcin Król,et al.  Flexible relaxation of rigid‐body docking solutions , 2007, Proteins.

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

[6]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  HADDOCK versus HADDOCK: New features and performance of HADDOCK2.0 on the CAPRI targets , 2007, Proteins.

[7]  D. Koshland Application of a Theory of Enzyme Specificity to Protein Synthesis. , 1958, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  R C Wade,et al.  Protein-protein association: investigation of factors influencing association rates by brownian dynamics simulations. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  Sandor Vajda,et al.  ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes , 2004, Bioinform..

[10]  David Baker,et al.  Protein–protein docking predictions for the CAPRI experiment , 2003, Proteins.

[11]  M. Sternberg,et al.  An analysis of conformational changes on protein-protein association: implications for predictive docking. , 1999, Protein engineering.

[12]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  Modeling the structure of mAb 14B7 bound to the anthrax protective antigen , 2007, Proteins.

[13]  G. Bouvignies,et al.  Exploring multiple timescale motions in protein GB3 using accelerated molecular dynamics and NMR spectroscopy. , 2007, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

[15]  K. Wüthrich,et al.  Structure and internal dynamics of the bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor in aqueous solution from long‐time molecular dynamics simulations , 1995, Proteins.

[16]  P. Bradley,et al.  Toward High-Resolution de Novo Structure Prediction for Small Proteins , 2005, Science.

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

[18]  C. Chennubhotla,et al.  Insights into equilibrium dynamics of proteins from comparison of NMR and X-ray data with computational predictions. , 2007, Structure.

[19]  J. Janin,et al.  Computer analysis of protein-protein interaction. , 1978, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[21]  G. Kleywegt,et al.  Crystal structure of an acetylcholinesterase-fasciculin complex: interaction of a three-fingered toxin from snake venom with its target. , 1995, Structure.

[22]  Michael Andrec,et al.  A large data set comparison of protein structures determined by crystallography and NMR: Statistical test for structural differences and the effect of crystal packing , 2007, Proteins.

[23]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  Structural model of the mAb 806-EGFR complex using computational docking followed by computational and experimental mutagenesis. , 2006, Structure.

[24]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Geometry‐based flexible and symmetric protein docking , 2005, Proteins.

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

[26]  S. Zinn-Justin,et al.  Picosecond to hour time scale dynamics of a "three finger" toxin: correlation with its toxic and antigenic properties. , 1997, Biochemistry.

[27]  A M J J Bonvin,et al.  Data‐driven docking: HADDOCK's adventures in CAPRI , 2005, Proteins.

[28]  O. Schueler‐Furman,et al.  Improved side‐chain modeling for protein–protein docking , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[29]  J. Changeux,et al.  ON THE NATURE OF ALLOSTERIC TRANSITIONS: A PLAUSIBLE MODEL. , 1965, Journal of molecular biology.

[30]  J. Navaza,et al.  Structure of fasciculin 2 from green mamba snake venom: evidence for unusual loop flexibility. , 1995, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[31]  David Baker,et al.  Protein-protein docking with backbone flexibility. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  Li Li,et al.  RDOCK: Refinement of rigid‐body protein docking predictions , 2003, Proteins.

[33]  Jennifer M. Bui,et al.  Protein complex formation by acetylcholinesterase and the neurotoxin fasciculin-2 appears to involve an induced-fit mechanism , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Folding and binding cascades: Dynamic landscapes and population shifts , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[35]  Sandor Vajda,et al.  Protein-protein association kinetics and protein docking. , 2002, Current Opinion in Structural Biology.

[36]  Rolf Boelens,et al.  Structural model of the UbcH5B/CNOT4 complex revealed by combining NMR, mutagenesis, and docking approaches. , 2004, Structure.

[37]  C Kooperberg,et al.  Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[38]  Marcin Król,et al.  Implicit flexibility in protein docking: Cross‐docking and local refinement , 2007, Proteins.

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

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

[41]  David Baker,et al.  RosettaDock in CAPRI rounds 6–12 , 2007, Proteins.

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

[43]  I. Bahar,et al.  Structural changes involved in protein binding correlate with intrinsic motions of proteins in the unbound state. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Representing receptor flexibility in ligand docking through relevant normal modes. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[45]  M. Philippopoulos,et al.  Exploring the dynamic information content of a protein NMR structure: Comparison of a molecular dynamics simulation with the NMR and X‐ray structures of Escherichia coli ribonuclease HI , 1999, Proteins.

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

[47]  G. Clore,et al.  Open-to-closed transition in apo maltose-binding protein observed by paramagnetic NMR , 2007, Nature.

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

[49]  A. Goldblum,et al.  Constructing ensembles of flexible fragments in native proteins by iterative stochastic elimination is relevant to protein–protein interfaces , 2007, Proteins.

[50]  M. Zacharias,et al.  Accounting for loop flexibility during protein–protein docking , 2005, Proteins.

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

[52]  J M Blaney,et al.  A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. , 1982, Journal of molecular biology.

[53]  Nir London,et al.  Assessing the energy landscape of CAPRI targets by FunHunt , 2007, Proteins.

[54]  O Noivirt,et al.  Docking to single‐domain and multiple‐domain proteins: Old and new challenges , 2005, Proteins.

[55]  P. Goodford A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. , 1985, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[56]  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.

[57]  Bert L de Groot,et al.  Geometry-based sampling of conformational transitions in proteins. , 2007, Structure.

[58]  M. Sternberg,et al.  The relationship between the flexibility of proteins and their conformational states on forming protein-protein complexes with an application to protein-protein docking. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[59]  Paul W. Fitzjohn,et al.  Incorporation of flexibility into rigid‐body docking: Applications in rounds 3–5 of CAPRI , 2005, Proteins.

[60]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  The performance of ZDOCK and ZRANK in rounds 6–11 of CAPRI , 2007, Proteins.

[61]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  CAPRI rounds 3–5 reveal promising successes and future challenges for RosettaDock , 2005, Proteins.

[62]  A. Bonvin,et al.  Binding site structure of one LRP-RAP complex: implications for a common ligand-receptor binding motif. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[63]  K. Misura,et al.  PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 59:15–29 (2005) Progress and Challenges in High-Resolution Refinement of Protein Structure Models , 2022 .

[64]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  Incorporating biochemical information and backbone flexibility in RosettaDock for CAPRI rounds 6–12 , 2007, Proteins.

[65]  E. Fischer Einfluss der Configuration auf die Wirkung der Enzyme , 1894 .