Applying Constraint Programming to Rigid Body Protein Docking

In this paper we show how Constraint Programming (CP) techniques can improve the efficiency and applicability of grid-based algorithms for optimising surface contact between complex solids. We use BiGGER [1] (Bimolecular complex Generation with Global Evaluation and Ranking) to illustrate the method as applied to modelling protein interactions, an important effort in current bioinformatics. BiGGER prunes the search space by maintaining bounds consistency on interval constraints that model the requirement for the shapes to be in contact but not overlapping, and by using a branch and bound approach to search the models with the best fit. This CP approach gives BiGGER some efficiency advantages over popular protein docking methods that use Fourier transforms to match protein structures. We also present an efficient algorithm to actively impose a broad range of constraints or combinations of constraints on distances between points of the two structures to dock, which allows the use of experimental data to increase the effectiveness and speed of modelling protein interactions and which cannot be done as efficiently in Fourier transform methods. This shows that constraint programming provides a different approach to protein docking (and fitting of shapes in general) that increases the scope of application while improving efficiency.

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

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

[3]  Stephen E Harding,et al.  The electron transfer complexes of cytochrome c peroxidase from Paracoccus denitrificans. , 2003, Biochemistry.

[4]  C. Costa,et al.  The Structure of an Electron Transfer Complex Containing a Cytochrome c and a Peroxidase* , 1999, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

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

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

[7]  Pedro Barahona,et al.  PSICO: Solving Protein Structures with Constraint Programming and Optimization , 2002, Constraints.

[8]  C. Aflalo,et al.  Hydrophobic docking: A proposed enhancement to molecular recognition techniques , 1994, 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]  Joël Janin,et al.  Welcome to CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions , 2002 .

[11]  Ludwig Krippahl,et al.  Pseudoazurin–Nitrite Reductase Interactions , 2005, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[12]  Ludwig Krippahl,et al.  Electron transfer complexes of cytochrome c peroxidase from Paracoccus denitrificans containing more than one cytochrome. , 2003, Biochemistry.

[13]  Victoria A. Roberts,et al.  Surveying Molecular Interactions with DOT , 1995, Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM SC95 Conference.

[14]  A. Impagliazzo Transient protein interactions : the case of pseudoazurin and nitrite reductase , 2005 .

[15]  Françoise Guerlesquin,et al.  A novel approach for assesing macromolecular complexes combining soft‐docking calculations with NMR data , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[16]  Ludwig Krippahl,et al.  Modeling protein complexes with BiGGER , 2003, Proteins.

[17]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics , 2002, Proteins.