Docking protein domains in contact space

BackgroundMany biological processes involve the physical interaction between protein domains. Understanding these functional associations requires knowledge of the molecular structure. Experimental investigations though present considerable difficulties and there is therefore a need for accurate and reliable computational methods. In this paper we present a novel method that seeks to dock protein domains using a contact map representation. Rather than providing a full three dimensional model of the complex, the method predicts contacting residues across the interface. We use a scoring function that combines structural, physicochemical and evolutionary information, where each potential residue contact is assigned a value according to the scoring function and the hypothesis is that the real configuration of contacts is the one that maximizes the score. The search is performed with a simulated annealing algorithm directly in contact space.ResultsWe have tested the method on interacting domain pairs that are part of the same protein (intra-molecular domains). We show that it correctly predicts some contacts and that predicted residues tend to be significantly closer to each other than other pairs of residues in the same domains. Moreover we find that predicted contacts can often discriminate the best model (or the native structure, if present) among a set of optimal solutions generated by a standard docking procedure.ConclusionContact docking appears feasible and able to complement other computational methods for the prediction of protein-protein interactions. With respect to more standard docking algorithms it might be more suitable to handle protein conformational changes and to predict complexes starting from protein models.

[1]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces , 1994, Biopolymers.

[2]  C. Sander,et al.  Correlated mutations and residue contacts in proteins , 1994, Proteins.

[3]  J. Gonzalez,et al.  Scoring docking models with evolutionary information , 2005, Proteins.

[4]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  Character and evolution of protein–protein interfaces , 2005, Physical biology.

[5]  L. Kelley,et al.  An automated approach for clustering an ensemble of NMR-derived protein structures into conformationally related subfamilies. , 1996, Protein engineering.

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

[7]  A. Bonvin,et al.  WHISCY: What information does surface conservation yield? Application to data‐driven docking , 2006, Proteins.

[8]  M J Sternberg,et al.  Use of pair potentials across protein interfaces in screening predicted docked complexes , 1999, Proteins.

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

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

[11]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  Predicting binding sites of hydrolase-inhibitor complexes by combining several methods , 2004, BMC Bioinformatics.

[12]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Data‐driven docking for the study of biomolecular complexes , 2005, The FEBS journal.

[13]  Jong H. Park,et al.  Mapping protein family interactions: intramolecular and intermolecular protein family interaction repertoires in the PDB and yeast. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  Jie Liang,et al.  Protein-protein interactions: hot spots and structurally conserved residues often locate in complemented pockets that pre-organized in the unbound states: implications for docking. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  C. Sander,et al.  Database of homology‐derived protein structures and the structural meaning of sequence alignment , 1991, Proteins.

[16]  S. Hubbard,et al.  Conservation of orientation and sequence in protein domain--domain interactions. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  M. L. Connolly Measurement of protein surface shape by solid angles , 1986 .

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

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

[20]  J. Janin,et al.  Protein-protein recognition. , 1995, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[21]  Juan Fernández-Recio,et al.  Efficient restraints for protein-protein docking by comparison of observed amino acid substitution patterns with those predicted from local environment. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  A. Valencia,et al.  Prediction of protein--protein interaction sites in heterocomplexes with neural networks. , 2002, European journal of biochemistry.

[23]  M. Sanner,et al.  Reduced surface: an efficient way to compute molecular surfaces. , 1996, Biopolymers.

[24]  W. Delano Unraveling hot spots in binding interfaces: progress and challenges. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[25]  P Fariselli,et al.  Prediction of contact maps with neural networks and correlated mutations. , 2001, Protein engineering.

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

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

[28]  Frances M. G. Pearl,et al.  The CATH Domain Structure Database and related resources Gene3D and DHS provide comprehensive domain family information for genome analysis , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[29]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  MolMovDB: analysis and visualization of conformational change and structural flexibility , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[30]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[31]  David R. Westhead,et al.  Improved prediction of protein-protein binding sites using a support vector machines approach. , 2005, Bioinformatics.

[32]  C. Sander,et al.  Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  N. Blackstone,et al.  Molecular Biology of the Cell.Fourth Edition.ByBruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and, Peter Walter.New York: Garland Science.$102.00. xxxiv + 1463 p; ill.; glossary (G:1–G:36); index (I:1–I:49); tables (T:1). ISBN: 0–8153–3218–1. [CD‐ROM included.] 2002. , 2003 .

[34]  Eytan Domany,et al.  Protein folding using contact maps. , 2000 .

[35]  J. Janin Assessing predictions of protein–protein interaction: The CAPRI experiment , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[37]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Examination of shape complementarity in docking of Unbound proteins , 1999, Proteins.

[38]  C. Sander,et al.  Correlated Mutations and Residue Contacts , 1994 .

[39]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Protein-Protein Interactions: Coupling of Structurally Conserved Residues and of Hot Spots across Interfaces. Implications for Docking , 2004 .

[40]  J. Skolnick,et al.  Prediction of physical protein–protein interactions , 2005, Physical biology.

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

[42]  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.

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

[44]  J. Janin,et al.  Protein docking algorithms: simulating molecular recognition , 1993 .

[45]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  Development and testing of an automated approach to protein docking , 2005, Proteins.

[46]  J. Janin,et al.  Structural basis of macromolecular recognition. , 2002, Advances in protein chemistry.

[47]  S. Vajda,et al.  Anchor residues in protein-protein interactions. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[48]  Yuhua Duan,et al.  Physicochemical and residue conservation calculations to improve the ranking of protein–protein docking solutions , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[49]  Michelle R. Arkin,et al.  Small-molecule inhibitors of protein–protein interactions: progressing towards the dream , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[50]  A. Mclachlan Tests for comparing related amino-acid sequences. Cytochrome c and cytochrome c 551 . , 1971, Journal of molecular biology.

[51]  J. Janin,et al.  Computer studies of interactions between macromolecules. , 1987, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[52]  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.

[53]  R. Russell,et al.  Protein complexes: structure prediction challenges for the 21st century. , 2005, Current opinion in structural biology.

[54]  Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al.  Finding biologically relevant protein domain interactions: Conserved binding mode analysis , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[55]  András Fiser,et al.  ModLoop: automated modeling of loops in protein structures , 2003, Bioinform..

[56]  T. Clackson,et al.  A hot spot of binding energy in a hormone-receptor interface , 1995, Science.

[57]  Ariel Fernández,et al.  Insufficiently dehydrated hydrogen bonds as determinants of protein interactions , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[58]  T. Takagi,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interaction sites using support vector machines. , 2004, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

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

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

[61]  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.

[62]  A. Godzik,et al.  Regularities in interaction patterns of globular proteins. , 1993, Protein engineering.

[63]  O. Schueler‐Furman,et al.  Progress in Modeling of Protein Structures and Interactions , 2005, Science.