Assessment of ligand‐binding residue predictions in CASP9

Interactions between proteins and their ligands play central roles in many physiological processes. The structural details for most of these interactions, however, have not yet been characterized experientially. Therefore, various computational tools have been developed to predict the location of binding sites and the amino acid residues interacting with ligands. In this manuscript, we assess the performance of 33 methods participating in the ligand‐binding site prediction category in CASP9. The overall accuracy of ligand‐binding site predictions in CASP9 appears rather high (average Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.62 for the 10 top performing groups) and compared to previous experiments more groups performed equally well. However, this should be seen in context of a strong bias in the test data toward easy template‐based models. Overall, the top performing methods have converged to a similar approach using ligand‐binding site inference from related homologous structures, which limits their applicability for difficult de novo prediction targets. Here, we present the results of the CASP9 assessment of the ligand‐binding site category, discuss examples for successful and challenging prediction targets in CASP9, and finally suggest changes in the format of the experiment to overcome the current limitations of the assessment. Proteins 2011. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  K. Henrick,et al.  Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline state. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  John D. Westbrook,et al.  The Protein Model Portal , 2008, Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics.

[3]  B. Matthews Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. , 1975, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[4]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  firestar—prediction of functionally important residues using structural templates and alignment reliability , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  Dario Ghersi,et al.  SITEHOUND-web: a server for ligand binding site identification in protein structures , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  Brian K Shoichet,et al.  Prediction of protein-ligand interactions. Docking and scoring: successes and gaps. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  Marco Biasini,et al.  OpenStructure: a flexible software framework for computational structural biology , 2010, Bioinform..

[8]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  The worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB): ensuring a single, uniform archive of PDB data , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  R. Laskowski SURFNET: a program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. , 1995, Journal of molecular graphics.

[10]  Michael J E Sternberg,et al.  Prediction of ligand binding sites using homologous structures and conservation at CASP8 , 2009, Proteins.

[11]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  PSiFR: an integrated resource for prediction of protein structure and function , 2010, Bioinform..

[12]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries , 2004, Nature.

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

[14]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  J. Skolnick,et al.  A threading-based method (FINDSITE) for ligand-binding site prediction and functional annotation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  C. Axel Innis,et al.  siteFiNDER|3D: a web-based tool for predicting the location of functional sites in proteins , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  J. Irwin,et al.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  Piero Fariselli,et al.  ConSeq: the identification of functionally and structurally important residues in protein sequences , 2004, Bioinform..

[19]  J. Thornton,et al.  A method for localizing ligand binding pockets in protein structures , 2005, Proteins.

[20]  Gonzalo López,et al.  Assessment of ligand binding residue predictions in CASP8 , 2009, Proteins.

[21]  María Martín,et al.  Ongoing and future developments at the Universal Protein Resource , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[22]  Johannes Söding,et al.  Prediction of protein functional residues from sequence by probability density estimation , 2008, Bioinform..

[23]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Phylogeny-independent detection of functional residues , 2006, Bioinform..

[24]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. , 2010, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[25]  M. Helmer-Citterich,et al.  Structure-based function prediction: approaches and applications. , 2008, Briefings in functional genomics & proteomics.

[26]  C. Sander,et al.  A method to predict functional residues in proteins , 1995, Nature Structural Biology.

[27]  Keehyoung Joo,et al.  Protein‐binding site prediction based on three‐dimensional protein modeling , 2009, Proteins.

[28]  M Hendlich,et al.  LIGSITE: automatic and efficient detection of potential small molecule-binding sites in proteins. , 1997, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[29]  F. Wilcoxon Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[30]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  The prediction of protein function at CASP6 , 2005, Proteins.

[31]  Liam J. McGuffin,et al.  The binding site distance test score: a robust method for the assessment of predicted protein binding sites , 2010, Bioinform..

[32]  M. Schroeder,et al.  LIGSITEcsc: predicting ligand binding sites using the Connolly surface and degree of conservation , 2006, BMC Structural Biology.

[33]  Michael J. E. Sternberg,et al.  3DLigandSite: predicting ligand-binding sites using similar structures , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[34]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Assessment of predictions submitted for the CASP7 function prediction category. , 2007, Proteins.