Coarse-grained versus atomistic simulations: realistic interaction free energies for real proteins

MOTIVATION To assess whether two proteins will interact under physiological conditions, information on the interaction free energy is needed. Statistical learning techniques and docking methods for predicting protein-protein interactions cannot quantitatively estimate binding free energies. Full atomistic molecular simulation methods do have this potential, but are completely unfeasible for large-scale applications in terms of computational cost required. Here we investigate whether applying coarse-grained (CG) molecular dynamics simulations is a viable alternative for complexes of known structure. RESULTS We calculate the free energy barrier with respect to the bound state based on molecular dynamics simulations using both a full atomistic and a CG force field for the TCR-pMHC complex and the MP1-p14 scaffolding complex. We find that the free energy barriers from the CG simulations are of similar accuracy as those from the full atomistic ones, while achieving a speedup of >500-fold. We also observe that extensive sampling is extremely important to obtain accurate free energy barriers, which is only within reach for the CG models. Finally, we show that the CG model preserves biological relevance of the interactions: (i) we observe a strong correlation between evolutionary likelihood of mutations and the impact on the free energy barrier with respect to the bound state; and (ii) we confirm the dominant role of the interface core in these interactions. Therefore, our results suggest that CG molecular simulations can realistically be used for the accurate prediction of protein-protein interaction strength. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION The python analysis framework and data files are available for download at http://www.ibi.vu.nl/downloads/bioinformatics-2013-btt675.tgz.

[1]  Kenneth M. Merz,et al.  Application of the Nosé−Hoover Chain Algorithm to the Study of Protein Dynamics , 1996 .

[2]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  K Schulten,et al.  VMD: visual molecular dynamics. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[4]  Peter G Bolhuis,et al.  The influence of micelle formation on the stability of colloid surfactant mixtures. , 2010, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[5]  R. Hodges,et al.  Contribution of translational and rotational motions to molecular association in aqueous solution. , 2001, Biophysical journal.

[6]  Masahiro Kinoshita,et al.  Crucial importance of the water-entropy effect in predicting hot spots in protein-protein complexes. , 2011, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[7]  H. Gohlke,et al.  Free Energy Calculations by the Molecular Mechanics Poisson−Boltzmann Surface Area Method , 2012, Molecular informatics.

[8]  Michael Nilges,et al.  Flexibility and conformational entropy in protein-protein binding. , 2006, Structure.

[9]  D. Frenkel,et al.  Understanding molecular simulation : from algorithms to applications. 2nd ed. , 2002 .

[10]  Jeremy C. Smith,et al.  Enabling grand‐canonical Monte Carlo: Extending the flexibility of GROMACS through the GromPy python interface module , 2012, J. Comput. Chem..

[11]  Mark M. Davis,et al.  Two-step binding mechanism for T-cell receptor recognition of peptide–MHC , 2002, Nature.

[12]  Carles Pons,et al.  Present and future challenges and limitations in protein–protein docking , 2010, Proteins.

[13]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  A survey of available tools and web servers for analysis of protein-protein interactions and interfaces , 2008, Briefings Bioinform..

[14]  Guobin Luo,et al.  Dynamic distance disorder in proteins is caused by trapping. , 2006, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[15]  Dror Tobi,et al.  Designing coarse grained-and atom based-potentials for protein-protein docking , 2010, BMC Structural Biology.

[16]  A. Tamura,et al.  The entropy cost of protein association. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  Berk Hess,et al.  Improving Efficiency of Large Time-Scale Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Hydrogen-Rich Systems , 1999 .

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

[19]  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.

[20]  Anna-Pitschna E. Kunz,et al.  A comparison of methods to compute the potential of mean force. , 2007, Chemphyschem : a European journal of chemical physics and physical chemistry.

[21]  Olivier Michielin,et al.  Protein-protein interaction investigated by steered molecular dynamics: the TCR-pMHC complex. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[22]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Progress and challenges in predicting protein-protein interaction sites , 2008, Briefings Bioinform..

[23]  Ken A Dill,et al.  Physical Modeling of Aqueous Solvation , 2011, Journal of statistical physics.

[24]  William A. McLaughlin,et al.  Entropic contributions and the influence of the hydrophobic environment in promiscuous protein–protein association , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Carsten Kutzner,et al.  GROMACS 4:  Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular Simulation. , 2008, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[26]  Burkhard Rost,et al.  Protein–Protein Interaction Hotspots Carved into Sequences , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[27]  D. Tieleman,et al.  The MARTINI force field: coarse grained model for biomolecular simulations. , 2007, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[28]  Berend Smit,et al.  Understanding molecular simulation: from algorithms to applications , 1996 .

[29]  M. Parrinello,et al.  Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: A new molecular dynamics method , 1981 .

[30]  P. Chakrabarti,et al.  Conservation and relative importance of residues across protein-protein interfaces , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Statistical mechanics and molecular dynamics in evaluating thermodynamic properties of biomolecular recognition , 2011, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[32]  Partho Ghosh,et al.  Structure of the complex between human T-cell receptor, viral peptide and HLA-A2 , 1996, Nature.

[33]  Charlotte M. Deane,et al.  JOY: protein sequence-structure representation and analysis , 1998, Bioinform..

[34]  J. P. Grossman,et al.  Biomolecular simulation: a computational microscope for molecular biology. , 2012, Annual review of biophysics.

[35]  M. Gilson,et al.  The statistical-thermodynamic basis for computation of binding affinities: a critical review. , 1997, Biophysical journal.

[36]  Marwen Naïm,et al.  Molecular dynamics-solvated interaction energy studies of protein-protein interactions: the MP1-p14 scaffolding complex. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  Alan E. Mark,et al.  The GROMOS96 Manual and User Guide , 1996 .

[38]  S. Henikoff,et al.  Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  Marc F Lensink,et al.  Blind predictions of protein interfaces by docking calculations in CAPRI , 2010, Proteins.

[40]  Shmuel Sattath,et al.  How reliable are experimental protein-protein interaction data? , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[42]  Philippe Derreumaux,et al.  Flexibility and binding affinity in protein–ligand, protein–protein and multi-component protein interactions: limitations of current computational approaches , 2012, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[43]  Haiyang Zhang,et al.  Quantification of Solvent Contribution to the Stability of Noncovalent Complexes. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[44]  B M Baker,et al.  Four A6-TCR/peptide/HLA-A2 structures that generate very different T cell signals are nearly identical. , 1999, Immunity.

[45]  R. Larson,et al.  The MARTINI Coarse-Grained Force Field: Extension to Proteins. , 2008, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[46]  H. Berendsen,et al.  Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath , 1984 .

[47]  Siewert J Marrink,et al.  Structural determinants of the supramolecular organization of G protein-coupled receptors in bilayers. , 2012, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[48]  Brian M Baker,et al.  T cell receptor binding transition states and recognition of peptide/MHC. , 2007, Biochemistry.

[49]  Sebastian Maurer-Stroh,et al.  Crystal structure of the p14/MP1 scaffolding complex: how a twin couple attaches mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling to late endosomes. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  Andrew M Wollacott,et al.  Prediction of structures of multidomain proteins from structures of the individual domains , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[51]  Clare McCabe,et al.  Coarse-grained molecular models of water: a review , 2012, Molecular simulation.