Residue Conservation Information for Generating near-native Structures in Protein-protein Docking

MOTIVATION Protein-protein docking algorithms typically generate large numbers of possible complex structures with only a few of them resembling the native structure. Recently (Duan et al., Protein Sci, 14:316-218, 2005), it was observed that the surface density of conserved residue positions is high at the interface regions of interacting protein surfaces, except for antibody-antigen complexes, where a lesser number of conserved positions than average is observed at the interface regions. Using this observation, we identified putative interacting regions on the surface of interacting partners and significantly improved docking results by assigning top ranks to near-native complex structures. In this paper, we combine the residue conservation information with a widely used shape complementarity algorithm to generate candidate complex structures with a higher percentage of near-native structures (hits). What is new in this work is that the conservation information is used early in the generation stage and not only in the ranking stage of the docking algorithm. This results in a significantly larger number of generated hits and an improved predictive ability in identifying the native structure of protein-protein complexes. RESULTS We report on results from 48 well-characterized protein complexes, which have enough residue conservation information from the same 59 benchmark complexes used in our previous work. We compute conservation indices of residue positions on the surfaces of interacting proteins using available homologous sequences from UNIPROT and calculate the solvent accessible surface area. We combine this information with shape-complementarity scores to generate candidate protein-protein complex structures. When compared with pure shape-complementarity algorithms, performed by FTDock, our method results in significantly more hits, with the improvement being over 100% in many instances. We demonstrate that residue conservation information is useful not only in refinement and scoring of docking solutions, but also helpful in enrichment of near-native-structures during the generation of candidate geometries of complex structures.

[1]  A Tramontano,et al.  PUZZLE: a new method for automated protein docking based on surface shape complementarity. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  Sandor Vajda,et al.  Protein-protein association kinetics and protein docking. , 2002, Current Opinion in Structural Biology.

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

[4]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  Evolutionary predictions of binding surfaces and interactions. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[5]  G. Gonnet,et al.  Exhaustive matching of the entire protein sequence database. , 1992, Science.

[6]  F M Richards,et al.  Packing of alpha-helices: geometrical constraints and contact areas. , 1978, Journal of molecular biology.

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

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

[9]  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.

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

[11]  Tal Pupko,et al.  Structural Genomics , 2005 .

[12]  Rebecca C. Wade,et al.  Protein‐Protein Docking , 2001 .

[13]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  A family of evolution-entropy hybrid methods for ranking protein residues by importance. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[15]  Jinn-Moon Yang,et al.  GEMDOCK: A generic evolutionary method for molecular docking , 2004, Proteins.

[16]  Frederic M. Richards,et al.  Packing of α-helices: Geometrical constraints and contact areas☆ , 1978 .

[17]  Peter Willett,et al.  GAPDOCK: A genetic algorithm approach to protein docking in CAPRI round 1 , 2003, Proteins.

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

[19]  Chris Sander,et al.  MView: a web-compatible database search or multiple alignment viewer , 1998, Bioinform..

[20]  M J Sternberg,et al.  Predictive docking of protein-protein and protein-DNA complexes. , 1998, Current opinion in structural biology.

[21]  Olivier Lichtarge,et al.  Accurate and scalable identification of functional sites by evolutionary tracing , 2004, Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics.

[22]  J. Janin,et al.  Protein-protein recognition. , 1995, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[23]  T. Blundell,et al.  Definition of general topological equivalence in protein structures. A procedure involving comparison of properties and relationships through simulated annealing and dynamic programming. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  Gideon Schreiber,et al.  A novel method for scoring of docked protein complexes using predicted protein-protein binding sites. , 2004, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[25]  Yuhua Duan,et al.  Physicochemical and residue conservation calculations to improve the ranking of protein–protein docking solutions , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[26]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  A two-stage classifier for identification of protein-protein interface residues , 2004, ISMB/ECCB.

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

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

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

[30]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  Weighted geometric docking: Incorporating external information in the rotation‐translation scan , 2003, Proteins.

[31]  L. T. Ten Eyck,et al.  Protein docking using continuum electrostatics and geometric fit. , 2001, Protein engineering.

[32]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  A protein–protein docking benchmark , 2003, Proteins.

[33]  I D Kuntz,et al.  Predicting the structure of protein complexes: a step in the right direction. , 1996, Chemistry & biology.

[34]  J. Thornton,et al.  Protein–protein interfaces: Analysis of amino acid conservation in homodimers , 2001, Proteins.

[35]  Yiannis N. Kaznessis,et al.  A Quantitative Analysis of Interfacial Amino Acid Conservation in Protein-protein Hetero Complexes , 2005, J. Bioinform. Comput. Biol..