Use of pair potentials across protein interfaces in screening predicted docked complexes

Empirical residue–residue pair potentials are used to screen possible complexes for protein–protein dockings. A correct docking is defined as a complex with not more than 2.5 Å root‐mean‐square distance from the known experimental structure. The complexes were generated by “ftdock” (Gabb et al. J Mol Biol 1997;272:106–120) that ranks using shape complementarity. The complexes studied were 5 enzyme‐inhibitors and 2 antibody‐antigens, starting from the unbound crystallographic coordinates, with a further 2 antibody‐antigens where the antibody was from the bound crystallographic complex. The pair potential functions tested were derived both from observed intramolecular pairings in a database of nonhomologous protein domains, and from observed intermolecular pairings across the interfaces in sets of nonhomologous heterodimers and homodimers. Out of various alternate strategies, we found the optimal method used a mole‐fraction calculated random model from the intramolecular pairings. For all the systems, a correct docking was placed within the top 12% of the pair potential score ranked complexes. A combined strategy was developed that incorporated “multidock,” a side‐chain refinement algorithm (Jackson et al. J Mol Biol 1998;276:265–285). This placed a correct docking within the top 5 complexes for enzyme‐inhibitor systems, and within the top 40 complexes for antibody–antigen systems. Proteins 1999;35:364–373.  © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Chymotrypsinogen: 2.5-angstrom crystal structure, comparison with alpha-chymotrypsin, and implications for zymogen activation. , 1970, Biochemistry.

[2]  N. Xuong,et al.  Chymotrypsinogen: 2,5-Å crystal structure, comparison with α-chymotrypsin, and implications for zymogen activation , 1970 .

[3]  B. Lee,et al.  The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. , 1971, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  C. Chothia,et al.  Principles of protein–protein recognition , 1975, Nature.

[5]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Medium- and long-range interaction parameters between amino acids for predicting three-dimensional structures of proteins. , 1976, Macromolecules.

[6]  G J Williams,et al.  The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. , 1978, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[7]  R. Huber,et al.  Crystal structure of bovine trypsinogen at 1-8 A resolution. II. Crystallographic refinement, refined crystal structure and comparison with bovine trypsin. , 1977, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  W. Bode,et al.  Refined 2.5 A X-ray crystal structure of the complex formed by porcine kallikrein A and the bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor. Crystallization, Patterson search, structure determination, refinement, structure and comparison with its components and with the bovine trypsin-pancreatic trypsin inhibit , 1983, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  W. Bode,et al.  Refined 2 A X-ray crystal structure of porcine pancreatic kallikrein A, a specific trypsin-like serine proteinase. Crystallization, structure determination, crystallographic refinement, structure and its comparison with bovine trypsin. , 1983, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  R. Huber,et al.  The Geometry of the Reactive Site and of the Peptide Groups in Trypsin, Trypsinogen and its Complexes with Inhibitors , 1983 .

[11]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation , 1985 .

[12]  R. Huber,et al.  The crystal and molecular structure of the third domain of silver pheasant ovomucoid (OMSVP3). , 1985, European journal of biochemistry.

[13]  A. Tulinsky,et al.  The refinement and the structure of the dimer of alpha-chymotrypsin at 1.67-A resolution. , 1985, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[14]  B C Finzel,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of an antibody-antigen complex. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  M. James,et al.  Crystal and molecular structure of the serine proteinase inhibitor CI-2 from barley seeds. , 1988, Biochemistry.

[16]  A Wlodawer,et al.  Comparison of two highly refined structures of bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor. , 1987, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  Randy J. Read,et al.  Crystal and molecular structures of the complex of α-chymotrypsin with its inhibitor Turkey ovomucoid third domain at 1.8 Å resolution , 1987 .

[18]  R J Read,et al.  Crystal and molecular structures of the complex of alpha-chymotrypsin with its inhibitor turkey ovomucoid third domain at 1.8 A resolution. , 1987, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  M. James,et al.  Structural comparison of two serine proteinase-protein inhibitor complexes: eglin-c-subtilisin Carlsberg and CI-2-subtilisin Novo. , 1988, Biochemistry.

[20]  G. Cohen,et al.  Structure of an antibody-antigen complex: crystal structure of the HyHEL-10 Fab-lysozyme complex. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  K. Dill Dominant forces in protein folding. , 1990, Biochemistry.

[22]  M. Sippl Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

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

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

[25]  T. Bhat,et al.  Crystallographic refinement of the three-dimensional structure of the FabD1.3-lysozyme complex at 2.5-A resolution. , 1991, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[26]  D. Schomburg,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of the complexes between bovine chymotrypsinogen A and two recombinant variants of human pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor (Kazal-type). , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[28]  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.

[29]  D. T. Jones,et al.  A new approach to protein fold recognition , 1992, Nature.

[30]  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.

[31]  D Schomburg,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of a recombinant variant of human pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor (Kazal type). , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  A. Godzik,et al.  Topology fingerprint approach to the inverse protein folding problem. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  S. Bryant,et al.  An empirical energy function for threading protein sequence through the folding motif , 1993, Proteins.

[34]  Adam Godzik,et al.  Lattice representations of globular proteins: How good are they? , 1993, J. Comput. Chem..

[35]  M. Levitt,et al.  Exploring conformational space with a simple lattice model for protein structure. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  J Navaza,et al.  Three-dimensional structures of the free and the antigen-complexed Fab from monoclonal anti-lysozyme antibody D44.1. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

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

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

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

[40]  A G Murzin,et al.  SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  K. Watanabe,et al.  Dissection of protein-carbohydrate interactions in mutant hen egg-white lysozyme complexes and their hydrolytic activity. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[42]  M. Levitt,et al.  The complexity and accuracy of discrete state models of protein structure. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[44]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Molecular surface complementarity at protein-protein interfaces: the critical role played by surface normals at well placed, sparse, points in docking. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[45]  M Levitt,et al.  Recognizing native folds by the arrangement of hydrophobic and polar residues. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[46]  R. Read,et al.  Atomic solvation parameters in the analysis of protein‐protein docking results , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[47]  K. Dill,et al.  Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: how accurate are they? , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[48]  C. Frömmel,et al.  The automatic search for ligand binding sites in proteins of known three-dimensional structure using only geometric criteria. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[49]  D. Covell,et al.  Docking enzyme‐inhibitor complexes using a preference‐based free‐energy surface , 1996, Proteins.

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

[51]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[52]  David C. Jones,et al.  Progress in protein structure prediction. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

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

[54]  S Vajda,et al.  Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

[55]  A. Godzik,et al.  Derivation and testing of pair potentials for protein folding. When is the quasichemical approximation correct? , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[56]  S. Jones,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interaction sites using patch analysis. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[57]  F. Melo,et al.  Novel knowledge-based mean force potential at atomic level. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[58]  A E Torda,et al.  Perspectives in protein-fold recognition. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

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

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

[61]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..