Docking of protein models

An adequate description of entire genomes has to include information on the three‐dimensional (3D) structure of proteins. Most of these protein structures will be determined by high‐throughput modeling procedures. Thus, a structure‐based analysis of the network of protein–protein interactions in genomes requires docking methodologies that are capable of dealing with significant structural inaccuracies in the modeled structures of proteins. We present a systematic study of the applicability of our low‐resolution docking method to protein models of different accuracies. A representative nonredundant set of 475 cocrystallized protein–protein complexes was used to build an array of models of each protein in the set. A sophisticated procedure was created to generate the models with RMS deviations of 1, 2, 3, …, 10 Å from the crystal structure. The docking was performed for all the models, and the predictions were compared with the configurations of the original cocrystallized complexes. Statistical analysis showed that the low‐resolution docking can determine the gross structural features of protein–protein interactions for a significant percent of complexes of highly inaccurate protein models. Such predictions may serve as starting points for a more detailed structural analysis, as well as complement experimental and computational data on protein–protein interactions obtained by other techniques.

[1]  Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al.  Speeding molecular recognition by using the folding funnel: the fly-casting mechanism. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  I. Vakser,et al.  How common is the funnel‐like energy landscape in protein‐protein interactions? , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[3]  J A McCammon,et al.  Theory of biomolecular recognition. , 1998, Current opinion in structural biology.

[4]  I. Vakser,et al.  Main-chain complementarity in protein-protein recognition. , 1996, Protein engineering.

[5]  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.

[6]  I. Vakser Protein docking for low-resolution structures. , 1995, Protein engineering.

[7]  H A Scheraga,et al.  Reaching the global minimum in docking simulations: a Monte Carlo energy minimization approach using Bezier splines. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  T. Alwyn Jones,et al.  CASP3 comparative modeling evaluation , 1999, Proteins.

[9]  I. Vakser Low-resolution docking: prediction of complexes for underdetermined structures. , 1998, Biopolymers.

[10]  I. Vakser,et al.  Identification of the Binding Site on Cytochrome P450 2B4 for Cytochrome b 5 and Cytochrome P450 Reductase* , 1998, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[11]  Jay W. Ponder,et al.  Analysis and Application of Potential Energy Smoothing and Search Methods for Global Optimization , 1998 .

[12]  C. Aflalo,et al.  Hydrophobic docking: A proposed enhancement to molecular recognition techniques , 1994, Proteins.

[13]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Protein function in the post-genomic era , 2000, Nature.

[14]  I A Vakser Long-distance potentials: an approach to the multiple-minima problem in ligand-receptor interaction. , 1996, Protein engineering.

[15]  Garland R. Marshall,et al.  A potential smoothing algorithm accurately predicts transmembrane helix packing , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[16]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Folding funnels, binding funnels, and protein function , 1999, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[17]  Charlotte M. Deane,et al.  JOY: protein sequence-structure representation and analysis , 1998, Bioinform..

[18]  H. Scheraga,et al.  On the multiple-minima problem in the conformational analysis of molecules: deformation of the potential energy hypersurface by the diffusion equation method , 1989 .

[19]  M. Levitt,et al.  Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  Shirley M. Tilghman,et al.  Exploring genome space , 2000, Nature.

[21]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  A. Murzin Structure classification‐based assessment of CASP3 predictions for the fold recognition targets , 1999, Proteins.

[23]  Jacquelyn S. Fetrow,et al.  Structural genomics and its importance for gene function analysis , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

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

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

[26]  A Sali,et al.  Comparative protein modeling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1996, Molecular medicine today.

[27]  I. Vakser,et al.  Evaluation of GRAMM low‐resolution docking methodology on the hemagglutinin‐antibody complex , 1997, Proteins.

[28]  Stephen K. Burley,et al.  An overview of structural genomics , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[29]  C. Orengo,et al.  Analysis and assessment of ab initio three‐dimensional prediction, secondary structure, and contacts prediction , 1999, Proteins.

[30]  A. Sali,et al.  Protein structure modeling for structural genomics , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[31]  G H Loew,et al.  Construction of a 3D model of cytochrome P450 2B4. , 1997, Protein engineering.

[32]  I. Vakser,et al.  A systematic study of low-resolution recognition in protein--protein complexes. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.