Docking to single‐domain and multiple‐domain proteins: Old and new challenges

The diverse selection of targets in the CAPRI experiments provides grounds for determining the limits of our rigid‐body docking program MolFit, and for extending it. We find that the sensitivity of MolFit is high, enabling it to produce reasonably accurate docking solutions when the structures undergo moderate local conformation changes upon complex formation or when the docked molecules are modeled. Yet the ranks of these solutions are sometimes too low to meet the requirements of CAPRI assessment. This indicates that the selectivity of MolFit, which was optimized for docking of unbound X‐ray structures, and which relies on the availability of external data from biochemical and bioinformatic sources, needs readjustment in order to meet the challenges presented by NMR or modeled structures. A different challenge is presented by large global conformation changes such as movements of domains. We show that such changes can be accommodated within the rigid‐body approximation by employing rigid multibody multistage docking procedures. We also address the difficulty of ranking results from 2‐body and multibody docking scans in cases in which there are no external data favoring one option over the other. Proteins 2005;60:195–201. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  C. Chothia,et al.  The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  S. Wodak,et al.  Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods , 2003, Proteins.

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

[4]  R. Huber,et al.  Crystal structure of three consecutive laminin-type epidermal growth factor-like (LE) modules of laminin gamma1 chain harboring the nidogen binding site. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  Hans Goesaert,et al.  Properties of TAXI-type endoxylanase inhibitors. , 2004, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[6]  W. M. Westler,et al.  Solution structure of a type I dockerin domain, a novel prokaryotic, extracellular calcium-binding domain. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  Electrostatics in protein–protein docking , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[8]  H. van Tilbeurgh,et al.  Structural insights into the regulation of bacterial signalling proteins containing PRDs. , 2001, Current opinion in structural biology.

[9]  Jan A. Delcour,et al.  Structural Basis for Inhibition of Aspergillus niger Xylanase by Triticum aestivum Xylanase Inhibitor-I* , 2004, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[10]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  Hydrophobic complementarity in protein–protein docking , 2004, Proteins.

[11]  Alain Roussel,et al.  The Dual Nature of the Wheat Xylanase Protein Inhibitor XIP-I , 2004, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[12]  Sine Larsen,et al.  Substrate specificity and subsite mobility in T. aurantiacus xylanase 10A , 2001, FEBS letters.

[13]  Junichi Takagi,et al.  [Complex between nidogen and laminin fragments reveals a paradigmatic beta-propeller interface]. , 2003, Tanpakushitsu kakusan koso. Protein, nucleic acid, enzyme.

[14]  Martin Zacharias,et al.  Protein–protein docking with a reduced protein model accounting for side‐chain flexibility , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[15]  S. Champ,et al.  Cellulosome from Clostridium cellulolyticum: molecular study of the Dockerin/Cohesin interaction. , 1999, Biochemistry.

[16]  B. Dijkstra,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of Endo-1,4-beta-xylanase I from Aspergillus niger: molecular basis for its low pH optimum. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  Andrea Schmidt,et al.  Structure of the xylanase from Penicillium simplicissimum , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[18]  K. Christopher Garcia,et al.  Structure of the immunodominant surface antigen from the Toxoplasma gondii SRS superfamily , 2002, Nature Structural Biology.

[19]  Raphael Lamed,et al.  Cohesin-Dockerin Interaction in Cellulosome Assembly , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[20]  Paul Greengard,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of the catalytic subunit of protein serine/threonine phosphatase-1 , 1995, Nature.

[21]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Structural basis for the recognition of regulatory subunits by the catalytic subunit of protein phosphatase 1 , 1997, The EMBO journal.

[22]  Carlos J Camacho,et al.  Successful discrimination of protein interactions , 2003, Proteins.

[23]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  Modeling oligomers with Cn or Dn symmetry: Application to CAPRI target 10 , 2005, Proteins.

[24]  E. Katchalski‐Katzir,et al.  Modeling supra-molecular helices: extension of the molecular surface recognition algorithm and application to the protein coat of the tobacco mosaic virus. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  S. Harrison,et al.  The envelope glycoprotein from tick-borne encephalitis virus at 2 Å resolution , 1995, Nature.

[26]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  Protein-protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Soft protein–protein docking in internal coordinates , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[29]  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.

[30]  Human Rezaei,et al.  Insight into the PrPC-->PrPSc conversion from the structures of antibody-bound ovine prion scrapie-susceptibility variants. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[32]  M. Nilges,et al.  Complementarity of structure ensembles in protein-protein binding. , 2004, Structure.

[33]  D. le Coq,et al.  Crystal structure of an activated form of the PTS regulation domain from the LicT transcriptional antiterminator , 2001, The EMBO journal.

[34]  Marc Graille,et al.  Activation of the LicT Transcriptional Antiterminator Involves a Domain Swing/Lock Mechanism Provoking Massive Structural Changes* , 2005, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[35]  J. Vandenhaute,et al.  Crystallographic analysis of family 11 endo-beta-1,4-xylanase Xyl1 from Streptomyces sp. S38. , 2001, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[36]  E. Bayer,et al.  A cohesin domain from Clostridium thermocellum: the crystal structure provides new insights into cellulosome assembly. , 1997, Structure.

[37]  Harry J. Gilbert,et al.  Cellulosome assembly revealed by the crystal structure of the cohesin–dockerin complex , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  M. Levitt,et al.  A unified statistical framework for sequence comparison and structure comparison. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  Alain Roussel,et al.  Structural analysis of xylanase inhibitor protein I (XIP-I), a proteinaceous xylanase inhibitor from wheat (Triticum aestivum, var. Soisson). , 2003, The Biochemical journal.

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

[41]  Miriam Eisenstein,et al.  On proteins, grids, correlations, and docking. , 2004, Comptes rendus biologies.

[42]  K Wüthrich,et al.  NMR structure of the bovine prion protein. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  Junichi Takagi,et al.  Complex between nidogen and laminin fragments reveals a paradigmatic β-propeller interface , 2003, Nature.

[44]  R. Huber,et al.  Site‐directed mutagenesis and structural interpretation of the nidogen binding site of the laminin gamma1 chain. , 1996, The EMBO journal.

[45]  R. Buckingham,et al.  Importation of nuclease colicins into E coli cells: endoproteolytic cleavage and its prevention by the immunity protein. , 2002, Biochimie.

[46]  A. Alix,et al.  Predictive estimation of protein linear epitopes by using the program PEOPLE. , 1999, Vaccine.

[47]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Protein structure prediction via combinatorial assembly of sub-structural units , 2003, ISMB.

[48]  Roberto Dominguez,et al.  Structural basis of protein phosphatase 1 regulation , 2004, Nature.

[49]  M Eisenstein,et al.  Effect of local shape modifications of molecular surfaces on rigid-body protein-protein docking. , 2003, Protein engineering.

[50]  Sandor Vajda,et al.  CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions , 2003, Proteins.

[51]  Marc Graille,et al.  Structural inhibition of the colicin D tRNase by the tRNA‐mimicking immunity protein , 2004, The EMBO journal.

[52]  K. Stiasny,et al.  Structure of a flavivirus envelope glycoprotein in its low‐pH‐induced membrane fusion conformation , 2004, The EMBO journal.

[53]  A. Capron,et al.  Antigenicity and immunogenicity of P30-derived peptides in experimental models of toxoplasmosis. , 1994, Molecular immunology.

[54]  Jean-Guy Berrin,et al.  Specific Characterization of Substrate and Inhibitor Binding Sites of a Glycosyl Hydrolase Family 11 Xylanase fromAspergillus niger * , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[55]  Matti Leisola,et al.  Three-dimensional structures of thermophilic beta-1,4-xylanases from Chaetomium thermophilum and Nonomuraea flexuosa. Comparison of twelve xylanases in relation to their thermal stability. , 2003, European journal of biochemistry.