Present and future challenges and limitations in protein–protein docking

The study of protein–protein interactions that are involved in essential life processes can largely benefit from the recent upraising of computational docking approaches. Predicting the structure of a protein–protein complex from their separate components is still a highly challenging task, but the field is rapidly improving. Recent advances in sampling algorithms and rigid‐body scoring functions allow to produce, at least for some cases, high quality docking models that are perfectly suitable for biological and functional annotations, as it has been shown in the CAPRI blind tests. However, important challenges still remain in docking prediction. For example, in cases with significant mobility, such as multidomain proteins, fully unrestricted rigid‐body docking approaches are clearly insufficient so they need to be combined with restraints derived from domain–domain linker residues, evolutionary information, or binding site predictions. Other challenging cases are weak or transient interactions, such as those between proteins involved in electron transfer, where the existence of alternative bound orientations and encounter complexes complicates the binding energy landscape. Docking methods also struggle when using in silico structural models for the interacting subunits. Bringing these challenges to a practical point of view, we have studied here the limitations of our docking and energy‐based scoring approach, and have analyzed different parameters to overcome the limitations and improve the docking performance. For that, we have used the standard benchmark and some practical cases from CAPRI. Based on these results, we have devised a protocol to estimate the success of a given docking run. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Optimal docking area: A new method for predicting protein–protein interaction sites , 2004, Proteins.

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

[3]  S. Vajda,et al.  Protein-protein docking: is the glass half-full or half-empty? , 2004, Trends in biotechnology.

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

[5]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Soft protein–protein docking in internal coordinates , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

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

[8]  Solène Grosdidier,et al.  Prediction and scoring of docking poses with pyDock , 2007, Proteins.

[9]  Z. Weng,et al.  Integrating statistical pair potentials into protein complex prediction , 2007, Proteins.

[10]  Z. Weng,et al.  A novel shape complementarity scoring function for protein‐protein docking , 2003, Proteins.

[11]  L. Wyns,et al.  Three camelid VHH domains in complex with porcine pancreatic alpha-amylase. Inhibition and versatility of binding topology. , 2002, The Journal of biological chemistry.

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

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

[14]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Identification of protein-protein interaction sites from docking energy landscapes. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  Carlos J Camacho,et al.  Successful discrimination of protein interactions , 2003, Proteins.

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

[17]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules , 1995 .

[18]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  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.

[20]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  Inherent limitations in protein-protein docking procedures , 2007, Bioinform..

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

[22]  R. Abagyan,et al.  ICM‐DISCO docking by global energy optimization with fully flexible side‐chains , 2003, Proteins.

[23]  Juan Fernández-Recio,et al.  Structural assembly of two-domain proteins by rigid-body docking , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[24]  Martin Zacharias,et al.  ATTRACT: Protein–protein docking in CAPRI using a reduced protein model , 2005, Proteins.

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

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

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

[28]  Maxim Totrov,et al.  Improving CAPRI predictions: Optimized desolvation for rigid‐body docking , 2005, Proteins.

[29]  J. Ponder,et al.  An efficient newton‐like method for molecular mechanics energy minimization of large molecules , 1987 .

[30]  W. C. Still,et al.  Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics , 1990 .

[31]  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.

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

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

[34]  Adrian A Canutescu,et al.  Access the most recent version at doi: 10.1110/ps.03154503 References , 2003 .

[35]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics , 2002, Proteins.

[36]  C. Camacho,et al.  Modeling side‐chains using molecular dynamics improve recognition of binding region in CAPRI targets , 2005, Proteins.

[37]  Tammy M. K. Cheng,et al.  pyDock: Electrostatics and desolvation for effective scoring of rigid‐body protein–protein docking , 2007, Proteins.