Volume 69, Issue 4 pp. 793-800
Research Article

Incorporating biochemical information and backbone flexibility in RosettaDock for CAPRI rounds 6–12

Sidhartha Chaudhury

Sidhartha Chaudhury

Program in Molecular and Computational Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Sidhartha Chaudhury and Aroop Sircar contributed equally to this work.

Search for more papers by this author
Aroop Sircar

Aroop Sircar

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Sidhartha Chaudhury and Aroop Sircar contributed equally to this work.

Search for more papers by this author
Arvind Sivasubramanian

Arvind Sivasubramanian

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Search for more papers by this author
Monica Berrondo

Monica Berrondo

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Search for more papers by this author
Jeffrey J. Gray

Corresponding Author

Jeffrey J. Gray

Program in Molecular and Computational Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218===Search for more papers by this author
First published: 31 October 2007
Citations: 36

Abstract

In CAPRI rounds 6–12, RosettaDock successfully predicted 2 of 5 unbound–unbound targets to medium accuracy. Improvement over the previous method was achieved with computational mutagenesis to select decoys that match the energetics of experimentally determined hot spots. In the case of Target 21, Orc1/Sir1, this resulted in a successful docking prediction where RosettaDock alone or with simple site constraints failed. Experimental information also helped limit the interacting region of TolB/Pal, producing a successful prediction of Target 26. In addition, we docked multiple loop conformations for Target 20, and we developed a novel flexible docking algorithm to simultaneously optimize backbone conformation and rigid-body orientation to generate a wide diversity of conformations for Target 24. Continued challenges included docking of homology targets that differ substantially from their template (sequence identity <50%) and accounting for large conformational changes upon binding. Despite a larger number of unbound–unbound and homology model binding targets, Rounds 6–12 reinforced that RosettaDock is a powerful algorithm for predicting bound complex structures, especially when combined with experimental data Proteins 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.