Towards the prediction of protein interaction partners using physical docking

Deciphering the whole network of protein interactions for a given proteome (‘interactome’) is the goal of many experimental and computational efforts in Systems Biology. Separately the prediction of the structure of protein complexes by docking methods is a well‐established scientific area. To date, docking programs have not been used to predict interaction partners. We provide a proof of principle for such an approach. Using a set of protein complexes representing known interactors in their unbound form, we show that a standard docking program can distinguish the true interactors from a background of 922 non‐redundant potential interactors. We additionally show that true interactions can be distinguished from non‐likely interacting proteins within the same structural family. Our approach may be put in the context of the proposed ‘funnel‐energy model’; the docking algorithm may not find the native complex, but it distinguishes binding partners because of the higher probability of favourable models compared with a collection of non‐binders. The potential exists to develop this proof of principle into new approaches for predicting interaction partners and reconstructing biological networks.

[1]  S. Wodak,et al.  Docking and scoring protein complexes: CAPRI 3rd Edition , 2007, Proteins.

[2]  M. Moran,et al.  Large-scale mapping of human protein–protein interactions by mass spectrometry , 2007, Molecular systems biology.

[3]  J A McCammon,et al.  Theory of biomolecular recognition. , 1998, Current opinion in structural biology.

[4]  Tom Fawcett,et al.  An introduction to ROC analysis , 2006, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[5]  Juan Fernández-Recio,et al.  Pushing Structural Information into the Yeast Interactome by High-Throughput Protein Docking Experiments , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[6]  Edward M Marcotte,et al.  A map of human protein interactions derived from co-expression of human mRNAs and their orthologs , 2008, Molecular systems biology.

[7]  Alex W. Wilkinson,et al.  Computational prediction of protein-protein interactions , 2012 .

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

[9]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Folding funnels, binding funnels, and protein function , 1999, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[10]  James R. Knight,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2000, Nature.

[11]  A. Valencia,et al.  High-confidence prediction of global interactomes based on genome-wide coevolutionary networks , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  R. Russell,et al.  Structural systems biology: modelling protein interactions , 2006, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[13]  Anton J. Enright,et al.  Protein interaction maps for complete genomes based on gene fusion events , 1999, Nature.

[14]  Juan Fernández-Recio,et al.  Cell biology: Brief encounters bolster contacts , 2006, Nature.

[15]  E. van Nimwegen,et al.  Accurate Prediction of Protein–protein Interactions from Sequence Alignments Using a Bayesian Method , 2022 .

[16]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Are scoring functions in protein-protein docking ready to predict interactomes? Clues from a novel binding affinity benchmark. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

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

[18]  R. Ozawa,et al.  A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  E. Levy A simple definition of structural regions in proteins and its use in analyzing interface evolution. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  C. Craik,et al.  Structural basis of substrate specificity in the serine proteases , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[21]  J. Piehler New methodologies for measuring protein interactions in vivo and in vitro. , 2005, Current opinion in structural biology.

[22]  Livia Perfetto,et al.  MINT, the molecular interaction database: 2009 update , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[23]  W. Kabsch,et al.  Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen‐bonded and geometrical features , 1983, Biopolymers.

[24]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Protein co-evolution, co-adaptation and interactions , 2008, The EMBO journal.

[25]  David W. Ritchie,et al.  Ultra-fast FFT protein docking on graphics processors , 2010, Bioinform..

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

[27]  A G Murzin,et al.  SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  Alicia P. Higueruelo,et al.  Structural interactomics: informatics approaches to aid the interpretation of genetic variation and the development of novel therapeutics. , 2009, Molecular bioSystems.

[29]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  D. Ritchie,et al.  Protein docking using spherical polar Fourier correlations , 2000, Proteins.

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

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

[33]  Patrick Aloy,et al.  Interrogating protein interaction networks through structural biology , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

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

[36]  Liisa Holm,et al.  DaliLite workbench for protein structure comparison , 2000, Bioinform..