Binding free energy analysis of protein-protein docking model structures by evERdock.

To aid the evaluation of protein-protein complex model structures generated by protein docking prediction (decoys), we previously developed a method to calculate the binding free energies for complexes. The method combines a short (2 ns) all-atom molecular dynamics simulation with explicit solvent and solution theory in the energy representation (ER). We showed that this method successfully selected structures similar to the native complex structure (near-native decoys) as the lowest binding free energy structures. In our current work, we applied this method (evERdock) to 100 or 300 model structures of four protein-protein complexes. The crystal structures and the near-native decoys showed the lowest binding free energy of all the examined structures, indicating that evERdock can successfully evaluate decoys. Several decoys that show low interface root-mean-square distance but relatively high binding free energy were also identified. Analysis of the fraction of native contacts, hydrogen bonds, and salt bridges at the protein-protein interface indicated that these decoys were insufficiently optimized at the interface. After optimizing the interactions around the interface by including interfacial water molecules, the binding free energies of these decoys were improved. We also investigated the effect of solute entropy on binding free energy and found that consideration of the entropy term does not necessarily improve the evaluations of decoys using the normal model analysis for entropy calculation.

[1]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Extending the treatment of backbone energetics in protein force fields: Limitations of gas‐phase quantum mechanics in reproducing protein conformational distributions in molecular dynamics simulations , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[2]  Satoshi Omori,et al.  CyClus: A fast, comprehensive cylindrical interface approximation clustering/reranking method for rigid‐body protein–protein docking decoys , 2013, Proteins.

[3]  H. Grubmüller,et al.  Estimating Absolute Configurational Entropies of Macromolecules: The Minimally Coupled Subspace Approach , 2010, PloS one.

[4]  S. Jones,et al.  Principles of protein-protein interactions. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Raphael A. G. Chaleil,et al.  Updates to the Integrated Protein-Protein Interaction Benchmarks: Docking Benchmark Version 5 and Affinity Benchmark Version 2. , 2015, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  J Otlewski,et al.  The refined 2.0 Å X‐ray crystal structure of the complex formed between bovine β‐trypsin and CMTI‐I, a trypsin inhibitor from squash seeds (Cucurbita maxima) Topological similarity of the squash seed inhibitors with the carboxypeptidase A inhibitor from potatoes , 1989, FEBS letters.

[7]  Daniel Hoffmann,et al.  The Normal-Mode Entropy in the MM/GBSA Method: Effect of System Truncation, Buffer Region, and Dielectric Constant , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[8]  Bojan Zagrovic,et al.  PARENT: A Parallel Software Suite for the Calculation of Configurational Entropy in Biomolecular Systems. , 2016, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[9]  Dima Kozakov,et al.  Convergence and combination of methods in protein-protein docking. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[10]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. , 1998, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[11]  N. Matubayasi,et al.  Erratum: “Theory of solutions in the energy representation. II. Functional for the chemical potential” [J. Chem. Phys. 117, 3605 (2002)] , 2003 .

[12]  M. Karplus,et al.  Method for estimating the configurational entropy of macromolecules , 1981 .

[13]  D. van der Spoel,et al.  GROMACS: A message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation , 1995 .

[14]  S. Genheden,et al.  The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities , 2015, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[15]  Gregory A Ross,et al.  Rapid and Accurate Prediction and Scoring of Water Molecules in Protein Binding Sites , 2012, PloS one.

[16]  Marawan Ahmed,et al.  Entropy in bimolecular simulations: A comprehensive review of atomic fluctuations-based methods. , 2015, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[17]  N. Matubayasi,et al.  Free-energy analysis of the molecular binding into lipid membrane with the method of energy representation. , 2008, The Journal of chemical physics.

[18]  Arthur J. Olson,et al.  AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[19]  Nobuyuki Matubayasi,et al.  Theory of solutions in the energy representation. III. Treatment of the molecular flexibility , 2003 .

[20]  Z. Weng,et al.  A structure‐based benchmark for protein–protein binding affinity , 2011, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[21]  Marc F Lensink,et al.  Docking, scoring, and affinity prediction in CAPRI , 2013, Proteins.

[22]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  A smoothed backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins derived from adaptive kernel density estimates and regressions. , 2011, Structure.

[23]  Nobuyuki Matubayasi,et al.  Ermod: Fast and versatile computation software for solvation free energy with approximate theory of solutions , 2014, J. Comput. Chem..

[24]  Robert T. C. Brownlee,et al.  Effect of atomic charge, solvation, entropy, and ligand protonation state on MM‐PB(GB)SA binding energies of HIV protease , 2012, J. Comput. Chem..

[25]  S. Wodak,et al.  Modeling protein–protein and protein–peptide complexes: CAPRI 6th edition , 2017, Proteins.

[26]  Z. Weng,et al.  Protein–protein docking benchmark 2.0: An update , 2005, Proteins.

[27]  Nobuyuki Matubayasi,et al.  Theory of solutions in the energetic representation. I. Formulation , 2000 .

[28]  K S Wilson,et al.  Recognition of RNase Sa by the inhibitor barstar: structure of the complex at 1.7 A resolution. , 1998, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[29]  N. Matubayasi,et al.  Hydration property of globular proteins: An analysis of solvation free energy by energy representation method , 2010 .

[30]  Takeshi Ishikawa,et al.  Free-energy analysis of lysozyme–triNAG binding modes with all-atom molecular dynamics simulation combined with the solution theory in the energy representation , 2013 .

[31]  N. Matubayasi,et al.  Communication: Free-energy analysis of hydration effect on protein with explicit solvent: equilibrium fluctuation of cytochrome c. , 2011, The Journal of chemical physics.

[32]  Nobuyuki Matubayasi,et al.  Theory of solutions in the energy representation. II. Functional for the chemical potential , 2002 .

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

[34]  Jessica Andreani,et al.  Lessons from (co‐)evolution in the docking of proteins and peptides for CAPRI Rounds 28–35 , 2017, Proteins.

[35]  Shashank Deep,et al.  Crystal structure of the human TβR2 ectodomain–TGF-β3 complex , 2002, Nature Structural Biology.

[36]  N. Matubayasi,et al.  Interaction-component analysis of the hydration and urea effects on cytochrome c. , 2016, The Journal of chemical physics.

[37]  A. Stuchebrukhov,et al.  Dowser++, a new method of hydrating protein structures , 2016, Proteins.

[38]  Kengo Kinoshita,et al.  Blind prediction of interfacial water positions in CAPRI , 2014, Proteins.

[39]  N. Matubayasi,et al.  Correlation analysis for heat denaturation of Trp‐cage miniprotein with explicit solvent , 2016, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[40]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  Protein-protein docking: from interaction to interactome. , 2014, Biophysical journal.

[41]  Jens Meiler,et al.  ROSETTA3: an object-oriented software suite for the simulation and design of macromolecules. , 2011, Methods in enzymology.

[42]  Z. Weng,et al.  Protein–protein docking benchmark version 3.0 , 2008, Proteins.

[43]  M. Ikeguchi,et al.  Computational Methods for Configurational Entropy Using Internal and Cartesian Coordinates. , 2016, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[44]  Berk Hess,et al.  GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers , 2015 .

[45]  Vasant G Honavar,et al.  Computational prediction of protein interfaces: A review of data driven methods , 2015, FEBS letters.

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

[47]  Nobuyuki Matubayasi,et al.  End-point calculation of solvation free energy of amino-acid analogs by molecular theories of solution , 2010 .

[48]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Accelerating Protein Docking in ZDOCK Using an Advanced 3D Convolution Library , 2011, PloS one.

[49]  Richard H. Henchman,et al.  Macromolecular Entropy Can Be Accurately Computed from Force. , 2014, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

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

[51]  K Schulten,et al.  VMD: visual molecular dynamics. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[52]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[53]  Nobuyuki Matubayasi,et al.  Evaluation of protein-protein docking model structures using all-atom molecular dynamics simulations combined with the solution theory in the energy representation. , 2012, The Journal of chemical physics.

[54]  I. Wilson,et al.  Maturation of shark single-domain (IgNAR) antibodies: evidence for induced-fit binding. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.