Constraining Redundancy to Improve Protein Docking

Predicting protein-protein complexes (protein docking) is an important factor for understanding the majority of biochemical processes. In general, protein docking algorithms search through a large number of possible relative placements of the interacting partners, filtering out the majority of the candidates in order to produce a manageable set of candidates that can be examined in greater detail. This is a six-dimensional search through three rotational degrees of freedom and three translational degrees of freedom of one partner (the probe) relative to the other (the target). The standard approach is to use a fixed step both for the rotation (typically 10\(^\circ \) to 15\(^\circ \)) and the translation (typically 1A). Since proteins are not isotropic, a homogeneous rotational sampling can result in redundancies or excessive displacement of important atoms. A similar problem occurs in the translational sampling, since the small step necessary to find the optimal fit between the two molecules results in structures that differ by so little that they become redundant. In this paper we propose a constraint-based approach that improves the search by eliminating these redundancies and adapting the sampling to the size and shape of the proteins involved. A test on 217 protein complexes from the protein-protein Docking Benchmark Version 5 shows an increase of over 50 % in the average number of non-degenerate acceptable models retained for the most difficult cases. Furthermore, for about 75 % of the complexes in the benchmark, computation time is decreased by half, on average.

[1]  Pedro Barahona,et al.  Applying Constraint Programming to Rigid Body Protein Docking , 2005, CP.

[2]  E. Saff,et al.  Distributing many points on a sphere , 1997 .

[3]  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.

[4]  John A. Tainer,et al.  Robust, high-throughput solution structural analyses by small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) , 2009, Nature Methods.

[5]  David Hinkley,et al.  Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 2008 .

[6]  Raphael A. G. Chaleil,et al.  Updates to the Integrated Protein-Protein Interaction Benchmarks: Docking Benchmark Version 5 and Affinity Benchmark Version 2. , 2015, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  R. M. Burnett,et al.  DARWIN: A program for docking flexible molecules , 2000, Proteins.

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

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

[10]  L. Krippahl,et al.  BiGGER: A new (soft) docking algorithm for predicting protein interactions , 2000, Proteins.

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

[12]  Pedro Barahona,et al.  Protein docking with predicted constraints , 2015, Algorithms for Molecular Biology.

[13]  Victoria A. Roberts,et al.  DOT2: Macromolecular docking with improved biophysical models , 2013, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[15]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Taking geometry to its edge: Fast unbound rigid (and hinge‐bent) docking , 2003, Proteins.