Pushing the limits of what is achievable in protein–DNA docking: benchmarking HADDOCK’s performance

The intrinsic flexibility of DNA and the difficulty of identifying its interaction surface have long been challenges that prevented the development of efficient protein–DNA docking methods. We have demonstrated the ability our flexible data-driven docking method HADDOCK to deal with these before, by using custom-built DNA structural models. Here we put our method to the test on a set of 47 complexes from the protein–DNA docking benchmark. We show that HADDOCK is able to predict many of the specific DNA conformational changes required to assemble the interface(s). Our DNA analysis and modelling procedure captures the bend and twist motions occurring upon complex formation and uses these to generate custom-built DNA structural models, more closely resembling the bound form, for use in a second docking round. We achieve throughout the benchmark an overall success rate of 94% of one-star solutions or higher (interface root mean square deviation ≤4 Å and fraction of native contacts >10%) according to CAPRI criteria. Our improved protocol successfully predicts even the challenging protein–DNA complexes in the benchmark. Finally, our method is the first to readily dock multiple molecules (N > 2) simultaneously, pushing the limits of what is currently achievable in the field of protein–DNA docking.

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

[2]  E. Brown,et al.  Substituting an α-helix switches the sequence-specific DNA interactions of a repressor , 1984, Cell.

[3]  M. Brandriss,et al.  Analysis of constitutive and noninducible mutations of the PUT3 transcriptional activator , 1991, Molecular and cellular biology.

[4]  R. Hegde,et al.  The Structural Basis of DNA Target Discrimination by Papillomavirus E2 Proteins* , 2000, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[5]  B. Stoddard,et al.  Conformational changes and cleavage by the homing endonuclease I-PpoI: a critical role for a leucine residue in the active site. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  Ying Xu,et al.  Structure‐based prediction of transcription factor binding sites using a protein‐DNA docking approach , 2008, Proteins.

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

[8]  D. Joseph-McCarthy,et al.  Computational approaches to structure-based ligand design. , 1999, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[9]  Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,et al.  A protein–DNA docking benchmark , 2008, Nucleic acids research.

[10]  K. Gaston,et al.  Comprehensive comparison of the interaction of the E2 master regulator with its cognate target DNA sites in 73 human papillomavirus types by sequence statistics , 2007, Nucleic acids research.

[11]  R M Knegtel,et al.  Monte Carlo docking of protein-DNA complexes: incorporation of DNA flexibility and experimental data. , 1994, Protein engineering.

[12]  V. P. Chuprina,et al.  Structure of the complex of lac repressor headpiece and an 11 base-pair half-operator determined by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and restrained molecular dynamics. , 1994, Journal of Molecular Biology.

[13]  K. Umesono,et al.  Determinants of target gene specificity for steroid/thyroid hormone receptors , 1989, Cell.

[14]  P. Chambon,et al.  Three amino acids of the oestrogen receptor are essential to its ability to distinguish an oestrogen from a glucocorticoid-responsive element , 1989, Nature.

[15]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Predicting molecular interactions in silico: II. Protein-protein and protein-drug docking. , 2003, Current medicinal chemistry.

[16]  S. Kliewer,et al.  Structure of the retinoid X receptor alpha DNA binding domain: a helix required for homodimeric DNA binding. , 1993, Science.

[17]  M. Brandriss,et al.  Isolation of constitutive mutations affecting the proline utilization pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and molecular analysis of the PUT3 transcriptional activator , 1989, Molecular and cellular biology.

[18]  M. Sierk,et al.  Structural basis of RXR-DNA interactions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  G. Koudelka Recognition of DNA structure by 434 repressor. , 1998, Nucleic acids research.

[20]  Barry L. Stoddard,et al.  DNA binding and cleavage by the nuclear intron-encoded homing endonuclease I-PpoI , 1998, Nature.

[21]  G. Wagner,et al.  Structure and mobility of the PUT3 dimer , 1997, Nature Structural Biology.

[22]  M J Sternberg,et al.  Modelling repressor proteins docking to DNA , 1998, Proteins.

[23]  F. Cordes,et al.  Structure model of a complex between the factor for inversion stimulation (FIS) and DNA: modeling protein-DNA complexes with dyad symmetry and known protein structures. , 1996, Proteins.

[24]  Richard Lavery,et al.  Docking macromolecules with flexible segments , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[25]  S. Hendy,et al.  Retinoid X Receptor Alters the Determination of DNA Binding Specificity by the P-box Amino Acids of the Thyroid Hormone Receptor* , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[26]  S. Edmondson,et al.  Effect of mutation of the Sac7d intercalating residues on the temperature dependence of DNA distortion and binding thermodynamics. , 2005, Biochemistry.

[27]  R. Muhandiram,et al.  Carboxyl pK(a) values, ion pairs, hydrogen bonding, and the pH-dependence of folding the hyperthermophile proteins Sac7d and Sso7d. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  V. Vogt,et al.  Interaction of the intron-encoded mobility endonuclease I-PpoI with its target site , 1993, Molecular and cellular biology.

[29]  Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,et al.  3D-DART: a DNA structure modelling server , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[30]  Ronen Marmorstein,et al.  Crystal structure of a PUT3–DNA complex reveals a novel mechanism for DMA recognition by a protein containing a Zn2Cys6 binuclear cluster , 1997, Nature Structural Biology.

[31]  R. Kingston,et al.  Gene regulation in the postgenomic era: technology takes the wheel. , 2007, Molecular cell.

[32]  E. Brown,et al.  Substituting an alpha-helix switches the sequence-specific DNA interactions of a repressor. , 1984, Cell.

[33]  A. H. Wang,et al.  Partial B-to-A DNA transition upon minor groove binding of protein Sac7d monitored by Raman spectroscopy. , 2004, Biochemistry.

[34]  Changsheng Zhang,et al.  Structural insight into the self-sacrifice mechanism of enediyne resistance. , 2006, ACS chemical biology.

[35]  V. Vogt,et al.  Characterization of I-Ppo, an intron-encoded endonuclease that mediates homing of a group I intron in the ribosomal DNA of Physarum polycephalum , 1990, Molecular and cellular biology.

[36]  P. Dean,et al.  Recent advances in structure-based rational drug design. , 2000, Current opinion in structural biology.

[37]  Ziming Zhang,et al.  Determination of the three-dimensional structure of the Mrf2-DNA complex using paramagnetic spin labeling. , 2007, Biochemistry.

[38]  R. Dickerson,et al.  Definitions and nomenclature of nucleic acid structure parameters. , 1989, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[39]  R. Sauer,et al.  DNA recognition by beta-sheets in the Arc repressor-operator crystal structure. , 1994, Nature.

[40]  L. Mourey,et al.  Structure-Function Analysis of the THAP Zinc Finger of THAP1, a Large C2CH DNA-binding Module Linked to Rb/E2F Pathways* , 2008, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[41]  W. Olson,et al.  3DNA: a software package for the analysis, rebuilding and visualization of three-dimensional nucleic acid structures. , 2003, Nucleic acids research.

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

[43]  G. Ringold,et al.  Two amino acids within the knuckle of the first zinc finger specify DNA response element activation by the glucocorticoid receptor , 1989, Cell.

[44]  C. Glass Differential recognition of target genes by nuclear receptor monomers, dimers, and heterodimers. , 1994, Endocrine reviews.

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

[46]  M. Brandriss,et al.  Proline-independent binding of PUT3 transcriptional activator protein detected by footprinting in vivo , 1991, Molecular and cellular biology.

[47]  S. Subbiah,et al.  Recognition of DNA sequences by the repressor of bacteriophage 434. , 1988, Biophysical Chemistry.

[48]  S. Edmondson,et al.  The hyperthermophile chromosomal protein Sac7d sharply kinks DNA , 1998, Nature.

[49]  David W Ritchie,et al.  Recent progress and future directions in protein-protein docking. , 2008, Current protein & peptide science.

[50]  M. Brandriss Evidence for positive regulation of the proline utilization pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 1987, Genetics.

[51]  Victoria A Roberts,et al.  Predicting interactions of winged‐helix transcription factors with DNA , 2004, Proteins.

[52]  G. Koudelka,et al.  Differential recognition of OR1 and OR3 by bacteriophage 434 repressor and Cro. , 1993, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[53]  D. Bastia,et al.  The DNA-binding domain of HPV-16 E2 protein interaction with the viral enhancer: protein-induced DNA bending and role of the nonconserved core sequence in binding site affinity. , 1990, Virology.

[54]  M. Haussler,et al.  The Nuclear Vitamin D Receptor: Biological and Molecular Regulatory Properties Revealed , 1998, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[55]  R. Ladenstein,et al.  Crystal structure of the archaeal heat shock regulator from Pyrococcus furiosus: a molecular chimera representing eukaryal and bacterial features. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[56]  N. Koszewski,et al.  Vitamin D receptor interactions with the murine osteopontin response element , 1996, The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[57]  Robert T. Sauer,et al.  DNA recognition by β-sheets in the Arc represser–operator crystal structure , 1994, Nature.

[58]  R. Raines,et al.  Degenerate DNA recognition by I-PpoI endonuclease. , 1998, Gene.

[59]  P. Sigler,et al.  Structural determinants of nuclear receptor assembly on DNA direct repeats , 1995, Nature.

[60]  Xiang-Jun Lu,et al.  3DNA: a versatile, integrated software system for the analysis, rebuilding and visualization of three-dimensional nucleic-acid structures , 2008, Nature Protocols.

[61]  M. Brandriss,et al.  The Saccharomyces cerevisiae PUT3 activator protein associates with proline-specific upstream activation sequences , 1989, Molecular and cellular biology.

[62]  Francesca Fanelli,et al.  Prediction of MEF2A-DNA interface by rigid body docking: a tool for fast estimation of protein mutational effects on DNA binding. , 2006, Journal of structural biology.

[63]  Adrien Saladin,et al.  Insights on protein‐DNA recognition by coarse grain modelling , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[64]  Umut Y. Ulge,et al.  Altered target site specificity variants of the I-PpoI His-Cys box homing endonuclease , 2007, Nucleic acids research.

[65]  Roberto D Lins,et al.  Prediction of HIV-1 integrase/viral DNA interactions in the catalytic domain by fast molecular docking. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[66]  Victoria A Roberts,et al.  Complex of linker histone H5 with the nucleosome and its implications for chromatin packing. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[67]  I. Kuntz Structure-Based Strategies for Drug Design and Discovery , 1992, Science.

[68]  Rolf Boelens,et al.  Information-driven protein–DNA docking using HADDOCK: it is a matter of flexibility , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[69]  M. Emond,et al.  I-PpoI and I-CreI homing site sequence degeneracy determined by random mutagenesis and sequential in vitro enrichment. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[70]  Jason A. Lowry,et al.  Structural and Biophysical Analysis of the DNA Binding Properties of Myelin Transcription Factor 1* , 2008, Journal of Biological Chemistry.