Prediction of protein-binding areas by small-world residue networks and application to docking

BackgroundProtein-protein interactions are involved in most cellular processes, and their detailed physico-chemical and structural characterization is needed in order to understand their function at the molecular level. In-silico docking tools can complement experimental techniques, providing three-dimensional structural models of such interactions at atomic resolution. In several recent studies, protein structures have been modeled as networks (or graphs), where the nodes represent residues and the connecting edges their interactions. From such networks, it is possible to calculate different topology-based values for each of the nodes, and to identify protein regions with high centrality scores, which are known to positively correlate with key functional residues, hot spots, and protein-protein interfaces.ResultsHere we show that this correlation can be efficiently used for the scoring of rigid-body docking poses. When integrated into the pyDock energy-based docking method, the new combined scoring function significantly improved the results of the individual components as shown on a standard docking benchmark. This improvement was particularly remarkable for specific protein complexes, depending on the shape, size, type, or flexibility of the proteins involved.ConclusionsThe network-based representation of protein structures can be used to identify protein-protein binding regions and to efficiently score docking poses, complementing energy-based approaches.

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

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

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

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

[5]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Residue centrality, functionally important residues, and active site shape: Analysis of enzyme and non‐enzyme families , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[7]  S. L. Wong,et al.  Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network , 2005, Nature.

[8]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[9]  Z. Weng,et al.  Protein–protein docking benchmark version 3.0 , 2008, Proteins.

[10]  Carles Pons,et al.  Optimization of pyDock for the new CAPRI challenges: Docking of homology‐based models, domain–domain assembly and protein‐RNA binding , 2010, Proteins.

[11]  A. del Sol,et al.  Small‐world network approach to identify key residues in protein–protein interaction , 2004, Proteins.

[12]  Gabriel del Rio,et al.  Computer-Based Screening of Functional Conformers of Proteins , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[13]  Frank Alber,et al.  Integrating diverse data for structure determination of macromolecular assemblies. , 2008, Annual review of biochemistry.

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

[15]  A. Atilgan,et al.  Small-world communication of residues and significance for protein dynamics. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[16]  Martin Suter,et al.  Small World , 2002 .

[17]  Zheng Yuan,et al.  Exploiting structural and topological information to improve prediction of RNA-protein binding sites , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[18]  Gil Amitai,et al.  Network analysis of protein structures identifies functional residues. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  A. Sali,et al.  The molecular sociology of the cell , 2007, Nature.

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

[21]  Victoria A. Higman,et al.  Uncovering network systems within protein structures. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  Ganesh Bagler,et al.  Network properties of protein structures , 2004, q-bio/0408009.

[23]  Aric Hagberg,et al.  Exploring Network Structure, Dynamics, and Function using NetworkX , 2008, Proceedings of the Python in Science Conference.

[24]  M Karplus,et al.  Small-world view of the amino acids that play a key role in protein folding. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[25]  Shan Chang,et al.  Amino acid network and its scoring application in protein-protein docking. , 2008, Biophysical chemistry.

[26]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  FRODOCK: a new approach for fast rotational protein-protein docking , 2009, Bioinform..

[27]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Protein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0 , 2010, Proteins.

[28]  Stephen R. Comeau,et al.  PIPER: An FFT‐based protein docking program with pairwise potentials , 2006, Proteins.

[29]  Yael Mandel-Gutfreund,et al.  Revealing unique properties of the ribosome using a network based analysis , 2008, Nucleic acids research.

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

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

[32]  R. Konrat The protein meta-structure: a novel concept for chemical and molecular biology , 2009, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.

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

[34]  BMC Bioinformatics , 2005 .

[35]  Michael Lappe,et al.  Defining an Essence of Structure Determining Residue Contacts in Proteins , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[36]  Saraswathi Vishveshwara,et al.  Insights into Protein–DNA Interactions through Structure Network Analysis , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[37]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  Topological determinants of protein folding , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  Carles Pons,et al.  Scoring by Intermolecular Pairwise Propensities of Exposed Residues (SIPPER): A New Efficient Potential for Protein-Protein Docking , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[39]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Ligand Binding and Circular Permutation Modify Residue Interaction Network in DHFR , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[40]  Simon Mitternacht,et al.  A geometry-based generic predictor for catalytic and allosteric sites. , 2011, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.