A NMR-spectra-based scoring function for protein docking

A well studied problem in the area of Computational Molecular Biology is the so-called Protein-Protein Docking problem (PPD) that can be formulated as follows: Given two proteins A and B that form a protein complex, compute the 3D-structure of the protein complex AB. Protein docking algorithms can be used to study the driving forces and reaction mechanisms of docking processes. They are also able to speed up the lenghty process of experimental structure elucidation of protein complexes by proposing potential structures. In this paper, we are discussing a variant of the PPD-problem where the input consists of the tertiary structures of A and B plus an unassigned 1H-NMR spectrum of the complex AB. We present a new scoring function for evaluating and ranking potential complex structures produced by a docking algorithm. The scoring function computes a “theoretical” 1H-NMR spectrum for each tentative complex structure and subtracts the calculated spectrum from the experimental spectrum. The absolute areas of the difference spectra are then used to rank the potential complex structures. In contrast to formerly published approaches (e.g. Morelli et. al. [38]) we do not use distance constraints (intermolecular NOE constraints). We have tested the approach with the bound conformations of four protein complexes whose three-dimensional structures are stored in the PDB data bank [5] and whose 1H-NMR shift assignments are available from the BMRB database (BioMagResBank [47]). In all examples, the new scoring function produced very good rankings of the structures. The best result was obtained for an example, where all standard scoring functions failed completely. Here, our new scoring function achieved an almost perfect separation between good approximations of the true complex structure and false positives. Unfortunately, the number of complexes with known structure and available spectra is very small. Nevertheless, these experiments indicate that scoring functions based on comparisons of one- or multi-dimensional NMR spectra might be a good instrument to improve the reliability and accuracy of docking predictions and perhaps also of protein structure predictions (threading).

[1]  R. Nussinov,et al.  A geometry-based suite of molecular docking processes. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  Hans-Peter Lenhof An algorithm for the protein docking problem , 1995 .

[3]  Frank J.M. van de Ven,et al.  Multidimensional NMR in Liquids: Basic Principles and Experimental Methods , 1995 .

[4]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces , 1994, Biopolymers.

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

[6]  J. Cherfils,et al.  Molecular docking programs successfully predict the binding of a β-lactamase inhibitory protein to TEM-1 β-lactamase , 1996, Nature Structural Biology.

[7]  C. Sander,et al.  Fast and simple monte carlo algorithm for side chain optimization in proteins: Application to model building by homology , 1992, Proteins.

[8]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Rapid refinement of protein interfaces incorporating solvation: application to the docking problem. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  Gerhard Sagerer,et al.  Estimation and filtering of potential protein-protein docking positions , 1998, Bioinform..

[10]  M Czjzek,et al.  Heteronuclear NMR and soft docking: an experimental approach for a structural model of the cytochrome c553-ferredoxin complex. , 2000, Biochemistry.

[11]  Ernst Althaus,et al.  A combinatorial approach to protein docking with flexible side-chains , 2000, RECOMB '00.

[12]  S. Kim,et al.  "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  S Vajda,et al.  Prediction of protein complexes using empirical free energy functions , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[14]  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.

[15]  J Moult,et al.  Docking by least-squares fitting of molecular surface patterns. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[17]  J. Feeney,et al.  Validation of a new restraint docking method for solution structure determinations of protein–ligand complexes , 1999, Journal of biomolecular NMR.

[18]  M. Sternberg,et al.  An analysis of conformational changes on protein-protein association: implications for predictive docking. , 1999, Protein engineering.

[19]  D. Schomburg,et al.  Hydrogen bonding and molecular surface shape complementarity as a basis for protein docking. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  Hans-Peter Lenhof,et al.  New contact measures for the protein docking problem , 1997, RECOMB '97.

[21]  R. Mallion,et al.  Ring current theories in nuclear magnetic resonance , 1979 .

[22]  R. Mallion,et al.  New tables of ‘ring current’ shielding in proton magnetic resonance , 1972 .

[23]  A. Leach,et al.  Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  Harold A. Scheraga,et al.  Prodock: Software package for protein modeling and docking , 1999 .

[25]  M J Sternberg,et al.  A continuum model for protein-protein interactions: application to the docking problem. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[26]  NMR solution structure of a complex of calmodulin with a binding peptide of the Ca2+ pump. , 1999 .

[27]  Masaya Orita,et al.  A novel target recognition revealed by calmodulin in complex with Ca2+-calmodulin-dependent kinase kinase , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[28]  A modified soft docking method for proteins and peptides , 2002 .

[29]  M. Williamson,et al.  Empirical Comparisons of Models for Chemical-Shift Calculation in Proteins , 1993 .

[30]  G. Drobny,et al.  Quantum Description of High‐Resolution NMR in Liquids , 1990 .

[31]  J. Janin,et al.  Protein‐protein recognition analyzed by docking simulation , 1991, Proteins.

[32]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Protein docking and complementarity. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  M. L. Connolly Shape complementarity at the hemoglobin α1β1 subunit interface , 1986 .

[34]  T Lengauer,et al.  Two-stage method for protein-ligand docking. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[35]  W. M. Westler,et al.  A relational database for sequence-specific protein NMR data , 1991, Journal of biomolecular NMR.

[36]  Robert E. Bruccoleri,et al.  Antibody modeling using the conformational search program CONGEN , 1992 .

[37]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Detailed ab initio prediction of lysozyme–antibody complex with 1.6 Å accuracy , 1994, Nature Structural Biology.

[38]  J L Cornette,et al.  Consistency in structural energetics of protein folding and peptide recognition , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[39]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Computational methods for biomolecular docking. , 1996, Current opinion in structural biology.

[40]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  A Method for Biomolecular Structural Recognition and Docking Allowing Conformational Flexibility , 1998, J. Comput. Biol..

[41]  C. Laughton,et al.  Prediction of protein side-chain conformations from local three-dimensional homology relationships. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[42]  A R Leach,et al.  Exploring the conformational space of protein side chains using dead‐end elimination and the A* algorithm , 1998, Proteins.

[43]  R Nussinov,et al.  Flexible docking allowing induced fit in proteins: Insights from an open to closed conformational isomers , 1998, Proteins.

[44]  David J Weber,et al.  The Ca2+-Dependent Interaction of S100B(ββ) with a Peptide Derived from p53† , 1998 .

[45]  G J Williams,et al.  The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. , 1977, Journal of molecular biology.

[46]  M J Sternberg,et al.  New algorithm to model protein-protein recognition based on surface complementarity. Applications to antibody-antigen docking. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[47]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[48]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Biased probability Monte Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[49]  L W Jelinski,et al.  Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[50]  D. Case,et al.  THEORIES OF CHEMICAL SHIFT ANISOTROPIES IN PROTEINS AND NUCLEIC ACIDS , 1998 .

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

[52]  Johan Desmet,et al.  The dead-end elimination theorem and its use in protein side-chain positioning , 1992, Nature.