RosettaDock in CAPRI rounds 6–12
Chu Wang
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Chu Wang and Ora Schueler-Furman contributed equally to this work.
Search for more papers by this authorOra Schueler-Furman
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Department of Molecular Genetics and Biotechnology, Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
Chu Wang and Ora Schueler-Furman contributed equally to this work.
Search for more papers by this authorIngemar Andre
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Search for more papers by this authorNir London
Department of Molecular Genetics and Biotechnology, Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorSarel J. Fleishman
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Search for more papers by this authorPhilip Bradley
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Search for more papers by this authorBin Qian
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
David Baker
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Box 357350, WA 98195===Search for more papers by this authorChu Wang
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Chu Wang and Ora Schueler-Furman contributed equally to this work.
Search for more papers by this authorOra Schueler-Furman
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Department of Molecular Genetics and Biotechnology, Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
Chu Wang and Ora Schueler-Furman contributed equally to this work.
Search for more papers by this authorIngemar Andre
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Search for more papers by this authorNir London
Department of Molecular Genetics and Biotechnology, Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorSarel J. Fleishman
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Search for more papers by this authorPhilip Bradley
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Search for more papers by this authorBin Qian
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
David Baker
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Box 357350, WA 98195===Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
A challenge in protein–protein docking is to account for the conformational changes in the monomers that occur upon binding. The RosettaDock method, which incorporates sidechain flexibility but keeps the backbone fixed, was found in previous CAPRI rounds (4 and 5) to generate docking models with atomic accuracy, provided that conformational changes were mainly restricted to protein sidechains. In the recent rounds of CAPRI (6–12), large backbone conformational changes occur upon binding for several target complexes. To address these challenges, we explicitly introduced backbone flexibility in our modeling procedures by combining rigid-body docking with protein structure prediction techniques such as modeling variable loops and building homology models. Encouragingly, using this approach we were able to correctly predict a significant backbone conformational change of an interface loop for Target 20 (12 Å rmsd between those in the unbound monomer and complex structures), but accounting for backbone flexibility in protein–protein docking is still very challenging because of the significantly larger conformational space, which must be surveyed. Motivated by these CAPRI challenges, we have made progress in reformulating RosettaDock using a “fold-tree” representation, which provides a general framework for treating a wide variety of flexible-backbone docking problems. Proteins 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
REFERENCES
- 1 Berman HM, Bhat TN, Bourne PE, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Weissig H, Westbrook J. The protein data bank and the challenge of structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol 2000; 7( Suppl.): 957–959.
- 2 Vajda S, Camacho CJ. Protein–protein docking: is the glass half-full or half-empty? Trends Biotechnol 2004; 22: 110–116.
- 3 Smith GR, Sternberg MJ. Prediction of protein–protein interactions by docking methods. Current opinion in structural biology 2002; 12: 28–35.
- 4 Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 2002; 47: 409–443.
- 5 Janin J, Henrick K, Moult J, Eyck LT, Sternberg MJ, Vajda S, Vakser I, Wodak SJ. CAPRI: a Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions. Proteins 2003; 52: 2–9.
- 6 Janin J. The targets of CAPRI rounds 3–5. Proteins 2005; 60: 170–175.
- 7 Mendez R, Leplae R, De Maria L, Wodak SJ. Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: current status of docking methods. Proteins 2003; 52: 51–67.
- 8 Mendez R, Leplae R, Lensink MF, Wodak SJ. Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures. Proteins 2005; 60: 150–169.
- 9 Wodak SJ, Mendez R. Prediction of protein–protein interactions: the CAPRI experiment, its evaluation and implications. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2004; 14: 242–249.
- 10 Gray JJ, Moughon S, Wang C, Schueler-Furman O, Kuhlman B, Rohl CA, Baker D. Protein–protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. J Mol Biol 2003; 331: 281–299.
- 11 Wang C, Schueler-Furman O, Baker D. Improved side-chain modeling for protein–protein docking. Protein Sci 2005; 14: 1328–1339.
- 12 Li Z, Scheraga HA. Monte Carlo-minimization approach to the multiple-minima problem in protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1987; 84: 6611–6615.
- 13
Lazaridis T,
Karplus M.
Effective energy function for proteins in solution.
Proteins
1999;
35:
133–152.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990501)35:2<133::AID-PROT1>3.0.CO;2-N CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 14 Kortemme T, Morozov AV, Baker D. An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein–protein complexes. J Mol Biol 2003; 326: 1239–1259.
- 15 Schueler-Furman O, Wang C, Baker D. Progress in protein–protein docking: atomic resolution predictions in the CAPRI experiment using RosettaDock with an improved treatment of side-chain flexibility. Proteins 2005; 60: 187–194.
- 16 Canutescu AA, Dunbrack RL,Jr. Cyclic coordinate descent: a robotics algorithm for protein loop closure. Protein Sci 2003; 12: 963–972.
- 17 Rohl CA, Strauss CE, Chivian D, Baker D. Modeling structurally variable regions in homologous proteins with rosetta. Proteins 2004; 55: 656–677.
- 18 Bradley P, Baker D. Improved beta-protein structure prediction by multilevel optimization of nonlocal strand pairings and local backbone conformation. Proteins 2006; 65: 922–929.
- 19 Heurgue-Hamard V, Champ S, Engstrom A, Ehrenberg M, Buckingham RH. The hemK gene in Escherichia coli encodes the N(5)-glutamine methyltransferase that modifies peptide release factors. EMBO J 2002; 21: 769–778.
- 20 Yang Z, Shipman L, Zhang M, Anton BP, Roberts RJ, Cheng X. Structural characterization and comparative phylogenetic analysis of Escherichia coli HemK, a protein (N5)-glutamine methyltransferase. J Mol Biol 2004; 340: 695–706.
- 21 Schubert HL, Phillips JD, Hill CP. Structures along the catalytic pathway of PrmC/HemK, an N5-glutamine AdoMet-dependent methyltransferase. Biochemistry 2003; 42: 5592–5599.
- 22 Vestergaard B, Van LB, Andersen GR, Nyborg J, Buckingham RH, Kjeldgaard M. Bacterial polypeptide release factor RF2 is structurally distinct from eukaryotic eRF1. Molecular cell 2001; 8: 1375–1382.
- 23 Graille M, Heurgue-Hamard V, Champ S, Mora L, Scrima N, Ulryck N, van Tilbeurgh H, Buckingham RH. Molecular basis for bacterial class I release factor methylation by PrmC. Molecular cell 2005; 20: 917–927.
- 24 Menetrey J, Perderiset M, Cicolari J, Dubois T, Elkhatib N, El Khadali F, Franco M, Chavrier P, Houdusse A. Structural basis for ARF1-mediated recruitment of ARHGAP21 to Golgi membranes. EMBO J 2007; 26: 1953–1962.
- 25 Bonsor DA, Grishkovskaya I, Dodson EJ, Kleanthous C. Molecular mimicry enables competitive recruitment by a natively disordered protein. J Am Chem Soc 2007; 129: 4800–4807.
- 26 Zhang Z, Hayashi MK, Merkel O, Stillman B, Xu RM. Structure and function of the BAH-containing domain of Orc1p in epigenetic silencing. EMBO J 2002; 21: 4600–4611.
- 27 Hou Z, Bernstein DA, Fox CA, Keck JL. Structural basis of the Sir1-origin recognition complex interaction in transcriptional silencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102: 8489–8494.
- 28 Bose ME, McConnell KH, Gardner-Aukema KA, Muller U, Weinreich M, Keck JL, Fox CA. The origin recognition complex and Sir4 protein recruit Sir1p to yeast silent chromatin through independent interactions requiring a common Sir1p domain. Mol Cell Biol 2004; 24: 774–786.
- 29 Hyvonen M, Macias MJ, Nilges M, Oschkinat H, Saraste M, Wilmanns M. Structure of the binding site for inositol phosphates in a PH domain. The EMBO J 1995; 14: 4676–4685.
- 30 Jones DT. Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. J Mol Biol 1999; 292: 195–202.
- 31 Rohl CA, Strauss CE, Misura KM, Baker D. Protein structure prediction using Rosetta. Methods Enzymol 2004; 383: 66–93.
- 32 Kawasaki M, Nakayama K, Wakatsuki S. Membrane recruitment of effector proteins by Arf and Rab GTPases. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2005; 15: 681–689.
- 33 Carr S, Penfold CN, Bamford V, James R, Hemmings AM. The structure of TolB, an essential component of the tol-dependent translocation system, and its protein–protein interaction with the translocation domain of colicin E9. Structure 2000; 8: 57–66.
- 34 Abergel C, Walburger A, Bouveret E, Claverie JM. MAD structure of the periplasmic domain of the E. coli pal protein, to be published.
- 35 Ray MC, Germon P, Vianney A, Portalier R, Lazzaroni JC. Identification by genetic suppression of Escherichia coli TolB residues important for TolB-Pal interaction. J Bacteriol 2000; 182: 821–824.
- 36 Bouveret E, Benedetti H, Rigal A, Loret E, Lazdunski C. In vitro characterization of peptidoglycan-associated lipoprotein (PAL)-peptidoglycan and PAL-TolB interactions. J Bacteriol 1999; 181: 6306–6311.
- 37 Clavel T, Germon P, Vianney A, Portalier R, Lazzaroni JC. TolB protein of Escherichia coli K-12 interacts with the outer membrane peptidoglycan-associated proteins Pal, Lpp and OmpA. Mol Microbiol 1998; 29: 359–367.
- 38 Avvakumov GV, Choe J, Newman EM, Mackenzie F, Kozieradzki I, Bochkarev A, Sundstrom M, Arrowsmith C, Edwards A, Dhe-paganon S, Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC). Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2-25 kDa (Huntington interacting protein 2), to be published.
- 39 Tong H, Hateboer G, Perrakis A, Bernards R, Sixma TK. Crystal structure of murine/human Ubc9 provides insight into the variability of the ubiquitin-conjugating system. J Biol Chem 1997; 272: 21381–21387.
- 40 Pichler A, Knipscheer P, Oberhofer E, van Dijk WJ, Korner R, Olsen JV, Jentsch S, Melchior F, Sixma TK. SUMO modification of the ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2-25K. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2005; 12: 264–269.
- 41 Walker JR, Avvakumov GV, Xue S, Newman EM, Mackenzie F, Weigelt J, Sundstrom M, Arrowsmith CH, Edwards AM, Bochkarev A, Dhe-Paganon S. A novel and unexpected complex between the SUMO-1-conjugating enzyme UBC9 and the Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2-25 kDa, to be published.
- 42 Ogunjimi AA, Briant DJ, Pece-Barbara N, Le Roy C, Di Guglielmo GM, Kavsak P, Rasmussen RK, Seet BT, Sicheri F, Wrana JL. Regulation of Smurf2 ubiquitin ligase activity by anchoring the E2 to the HECT domain. Mol Cell 2005; 19: 297–308.
- 43 Chen R, Weng Z. Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics. Proteins 2002; 47: 281–294.