Optimized grid-based protein–protein docking as a global search tool followed by incorporating experimentally derivable restraints
Wei Huang
School of Life Sciences and Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at the Microscale, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui 230027, People's Republic of China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Haiyan Liu
School of Life Sciences and Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at the Microscale, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui 230027, People's Republic of China
Tel.:/Fax: +86-551-3607451
School of Life Sciences and Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at the Microscale, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui, 230027, People's Republic of China. Tel.:/Fax: +86-551-3607451===Search for more papers by this authorWei Huang
School of Life Sciences and Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at the Microscale, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui 230027, People's Republic of China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Haiyan Liu
School of Life Sciences and Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at the Microscale, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui 230027, People's Republic of China
Tel.:/Fax: +86-551-3607451
School of Life Sciences and Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at the Microscale, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui, 230027, People's Republic of China. Tel.:/Fax: +86-551-3607451===Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Unbound protein docking, or the computational prediction of the structure of a protein complex from the structures of its separated components, is of importance but still challenging. A practical approach toward reliable results for unbound docking is to incorporate experimentally derived information with computation. To this end, truly systematic search of the global docking space is desirable. The fast Fourier transform (FFT) docking is a systematic search method with high computational efficiency. However, by using FFT to perform unbound docking, possible conformational changes upon binding must be treated implicitly. To better accommodate the implicit treatment of conformational flexibility, we develop a rational approach to optimize “softened” parameters for FFT docking. In connection with the increased “softness” of the parameters in this global search step, we use a revised rule to select candidate models from the search results. For complexes designated as of low and medium difficulty for unbound docking, these adaptations of the original FTDOCK program lead to substantial improvements of the global search results. Finally, we show that models resulted from FFT-based global search can be further filtered with restraints derivable from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) chemical shift perturbation or mutagenesis experiments, leading to a small set of models that can be feasibly refined and evaluated using computationally more expensive methods and that still include high-ranking near-native conformations. Proteins 2011. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.
Filename | Description |
---|---|
PROT_23223_sm_SuppInfo.pdf245.2 KB | Supporting Information |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1 Canals M,Marcellino D,Fanelli F,Ciruela F,de Benedetti P,Goldberg SR,Neve K,Fuxe K,Agnati LF,Woods AS,Ferre S,Lluis C,Bouvier M,Franco R. Adenosine A(2A)-dopamine D2 receptor-receptor heteromerization: qualitative and quantitative assessment by fluorescence and bioluminescence energy transfer. J Biol Chem 2003; 278: 46741–46749.
- 2 Ding HS,Yang YD,Zhang JH,Wu JH,Liu HY,Shi YY. Structural basis for SUMO-E2 interaction revealed by a complex model using docking approach in combination with NMR data. Proteins 2005; 61: 1050–1058.
- 3 Dai HM,Huang W,Xu J,Yao B,Xiong SM,Ding HS,Tang YJ,Liu HY,Wu JH,Shi YY. Binding model of human coactosin-like protein with filament actin revealed by mutagenesis. Biochim Biophys Acta 2006; 1764: 1688–1700.
- 4 Sprague ER,Wang C,Baker D,Bjorkman PJ. Crystal structure of the HSV-1 Fc receptor bound to Fc reveals a mechanism for antibody bipolar bridging. PLoS Biol 2006; 4: 975–986.
- 5 Wu L,Pan LF,Wei ZY,Zhang MJ. Structure of MyTH4-FERM domains in myosin VIIa tail bound to cargo. Science 2011; 331: 757–760.
- 6 Bonvin AMJJ. Flexible protein–protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006; 16: 194–200.
- 7
Palma PN,Krippahl L,Wampler JE,Moura JJG.
BiGGER: a new (soft) docking algorithm for predicting protein interactions.
Proteins
2000;
39:
372–384.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(20000601)39:4<372::AID-PROT100>3.0.CO;2-Q CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 8 Ben-Zeev E,Eisenstein M. Weighted geometric docking: incorporating external information in the rotation-translation scan. Proteins 2003; 52: 24–27.
- 9 Heifetz A,Eisenstein M. Effect of local shape modifications of molecular surfaces on rigid-body protein–protein docking. Protein Eng 2003; 16: 179–185.
- 10 Ma BY,Elkayam T,Wolfson H,Nussinov R. Protein–protein interactions: structurally conserved residues distinguish between binding sites and exposed protein surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: 5772–5777.
- 11 Jiang F,Lin W,Rao Z. SOFTDOCK: understanding of molecular recognition through a systematic docking study. Protein Eng 2002; 15: 257–263.
- 12 Grunberg R,Leckner J,Nilges M. Complementarity of structure ensembles in protein–protein binding. Structure 2004; 12: 2125–2136.
- 13 Smith GR,Sternberg MJE,Bates PA. The relationship between the flexibility of proteins and their conformational states on forming protein–protein complexes with an application to protein–protein docking. J Mol Biol 2005; 347: 1077–1101.
- 14 Dominguez C,Boelens R,Bonvin AMJJ. HADDOCK: a protein–protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. J Am Chem Soc 2003; 125: 1731–1737.
- 15 Fernandez-Recio J,Totrov M,Abagyan R. ICM-DISCO docking by global energy optimization with fully flexible side-chains. Proteins 2003; 52: 113–117.
- 16 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.
- 17 Smith GR,Sternberg MJE. Prediction of protein–protein interactions by docking methods. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2002; 12: 28–35.
- 18 Katchalski-katzir E,Shariv I,Eisenstein M,Friesem AA,Aflalo C,Vakser IA. Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992; 89: 2195–2199.
- 19 Vakser IA. Protein docking for low-resolution structures. Protein Eng 1995; 8: 371–377.
- 20 Gabb HA,Jackson RM,Sternberg MJE. Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. J Mol Biol 1997; 272: 106–120.
- 21 Jackson RM,Gabb HA,Sternberg MJE. Rapid refinement of protein interfaces incorporating solvation: application to the docking problem. J Mol Biol 1998; 276: 265–285.
- 22 Mandell JG,Roberts VA,Pique ME,Kotlovyi V,Mitchell JC,Nelson E,Tsigelny I,Ten Eyck LF. Protein docking using continuum electrostatics and geometric fit. Protein Eng 2001; 14: 105–113.
- 23 Chen R,Weng Z. Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics. Proteins 2002; 47: 281–294.
- 24 Krippahl L,Moura JJ,Palma PN. Modeling protein complexes with BiGGER. Proteins 2003; 52: 19–23.
- 25 Li L,Chen R,Weng Z. RDOCK: refinement of rigid-body protein docking predictions. Proteins 2003; 53: 693–707.
- 26 Carter P,Lesk VI,Islam SA,Sternberg MJE. Protein–protein docking using 3D-Dock in rounds 3, 4, and 5 of CAPRI. Proteins 2005; 60: 281–288.
- 27 Kozakov D,Brenke R,Comeau SR,Vajda S. PIPER: an FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials. Proteins 2006; 65: 392–406.
- 28 Tovchigrechko A,Vakser IA. GRAMM-X public web server for protein–protein docking. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34(Web Server issue): W310–W314.
- 29 Cheng TM,Blundell TL,Fernandez-Recio J. pyDock: electrostatics and desolvation for effective scoring of rigid-body protein–protein docking. Proteins 2007; 68: 503–515.
- 30 Pierce B,Weng Z. ZRANK: reranking protein docking predictions with an optimized energy function. Proteins 2007; 67: 1078–1086.
- 31 Pierce B,Weng Z. A combination of rescoring and refinement significantly improves protein docking performance. Proteins 2008; 72: 270–279.
- 32
Ritchie DW,Kemp GJL.
Protein docking using spherical polar Fourier correlations.
Proteins
2000;
39:
178–194.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(20000501)39:2<178::AID-PROT8>3.0.CO;2-6 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 33 Fernandez-Recio J,Totrov M,Abagyan R. Soft protein–protein docking in internal coordinates. Protein Sci 2002; 11: 280–291.
- 34 Zacharias M. ATTRACT: protein–protein docking in CAPRI using a reduced protein model. Proteins 2005; 60: 252–256.
- 35 Wang C,Schueler-Furman O,Baker D. Improved side-chain modeling for protein–protein docking. Protein Sci 2005; 14: 1328–1339.
- 36 Hou TJ,Wang JM,Chen LR,Xu XJ. Automated docking of peptides and proteins by using a genetic algorithm combined with a tabu search. Protein Eng 1999; 12: 639–647.
- 37 Gardiner EJ,Willett P,Artymiuk PJ. Protein docking using a genetic algorithm. Proteins 2001; 44: 44–56.
- 38 Schneidman-Duhovny D,Inbar Y,Polak V,Shatsky M,Halperin I,Benyamini H,Barzilai A,Dror O,Haspel N,Nussinov R,Wolfson HJ. Taking geometry to its edge: fast unbound rigid (and hinge-bent) docking. Proteins 2003; 52: 107–112.
- 39 Schneidman-Duhovny D,Inbar Y,Nussinov R,Wolfson HJ. Geometry-based flexible and symmetric protein docking. Proteins 2005; 60: 224–231.
- 40 Schneidman-Duhovny D,Inbar Y,Nussinov R,Wolfson HJ. PatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking. Nucleic Acids Res 2005; 33: W363–W367.
- 41 Terashi G,Takeda-Shitaka M,Kanou K,Iwadate M,Takaya D,Umeyama H. The SKE-DOCK server and human teams based on a combined method of shape complementarity and free energy estimation. Proteins 2007; 69: 866–872.
- 42 Mashiach E,Schneidman-Duhovny D,Andrusier N,Nussinov R,Wolfson HJ. FireDock: a web server for fast interaction refinement in molecular docking. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36(Web Server issue): W229–W232.
- 43 Wiehe K,Pierce B,Mintseris J,Tong WW,Anderson R,Chen R,Weng Z. ZDOCK and RDOCK performance in CAPRI rounds 3, 4, and 5. Proteins 2005; 60: 207–213.
- 44 Helmercitterich M,Tramontano A. Puzzle: a new method for automated protein docking based on surface shape complementarity. J Mol Biol 1994; 235: 1021–1031.
- 45 Lin SL,Nussinov R,Fischer D,Wolfson HJ. Molecular surface representations by sparse critical points. Proteins 1994; 18: 94–101.
- 46 Norel R,Lin SL,Wolfson HJ,Nussinov R. Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces. Biopolymers 1994; 34: 933–940.
- 47 Norel R,Lin SL,Wolfson HJ,Nussinov R. Molecular surface complementarity at protein–protein interfaces: the critical role played by surface normals at well placed, sparse, points in docking. J Mol Biol 1995; 252: 263–273.
- 48 Chen R,Weng Z. A novel shape complementarity scoring function for protein–protein docking. Proteins 2003; 51: 397–408.
- 49 Zhang Q,Sanner M,Olson AJ. Shape complementarity of protein–protein complexes at multiple resolutions. Proteins 2009; 75: 453–467.
- 50 Chen R,Li L,Weng Z. ZDOCK: an initial-stage protein-docking algorithm. Proteins 2003; 52: 80–87.
- 51 Meng EC,Kuntz ID,Abraham DJ,Kellogg GE. Evaluating docked complexes with the hint exponential function and empirical atomic hydrophobicities. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1994; 8: 299–306.
- 52 Vakser IA,Aflalo C. Hydrophobic docking: a proposed enhancement to molecular recognition techniques. Proteins 1994; 20: 320–329.
- 53 Meyer M,Wilson P,Schomburg D. Hydrogen bonding and molecular surface shape complementarity as a basis for protein docking. JMol Biol 1996; 264: 199–210.
- 54
Ausiello G,Cesareni G,HelmerCitterich M.
ESCHER: a new docking procedure applied to the reconstruction of protein tertiary structure.
Proteins
1997;
28:
556–567.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(199708)28:4<556::AID-PROT9>3.0.CO;2-7 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 55 Jackson RM,Sternberg MJE. A continuum model for protein–protein interactions: application to the docking problem. J Mol Biol 1995; 250: 258–275.
- 56 Audie J. Development and validation of an empirical free energy function for calculating protein–protein binding free energy surfaces. Biophys Chem 2009; 139: 84–91.
- 57
Moont G,Gabb HA,Sternberg MJE.
Use of pair potentials across protein interfaces in screening predicted docked complexes.
Proteins
1999;
35:
364–373.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990515)35:3<364::AID-PROT11>3.0.CO;2-4 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 58 Lei HX,Duan Y. Incorporating intermolecular distance into protein–protein docking. Protein Eng Des Sel 2004; 17: 837–845.
- 59 Gottschalk KE,Neuvirth H,Schreiber G. A novel method for scoring of docked protein complexes using predicted binding sites protein–protein binding sites. Protein Eng Des Sel 2004; 17: 183–189.
- 60 Yu YH,Lu BZ,Han JG,Zhang PF. Scoring protein–protein docked structures based on the balance and tightness of binding. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2004; 18: 251–260.
- 61 Heuser P,Bau D,Benkert P,Schomburg D. Refinement of unbound protein docking studies using biological knowledge. Proteins 2005; 61: 1059–1067.
- 62 Zhang C,Liu S,Zhou YQ. Docking prediction using biological information, ZDOCK sampling technique, and clustering guided by the DFIRE statistical energy function. Proteins 2005; 60: 314–318.
- 63 Martin O,Schomburg D. Efficient comprehensive scoring of docked protein complexes using probabilistic support vector machines. Proteins 2008; 70: 1367–1378.
- 64 Huang SY,Zou X. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function for protein–protein recognition. Proteins 2008; 72: 557–579.
- 65 Liang S,Meroueh SO,Wang G,Qiu C,Zhou Y. Consensus scoring for enriching near-native structures from protein–protein docking decoys. Proteins 2009; 75: 397–403.
- 66 Ravikant DV,Elber R. PIE-efficient filters and coarse grained potentials for unbound protein–protein docking. Proteins 2010; 78: 400–419.
- 67 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.
- 68 Halperin I,Ma BY,Wolfson H,Nussinov R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 2002; 47: 409–443.
- 69 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.
- 70 Lise S,Walker-Taylor A,Jones DT. Docking protein domains in contact space. BMC Bioinformatics 2006; 7: 310.
- 71 van Dijk ADJ,de Vries SJ,Dominguez C,Chen H,Zhou HX,Bonvin AMJJ. Data-driven docking: HADDOCK's adventures in CAPRI. Proteins 2005; 60: 232–238.
- 72 De Vries SJ,van Dijk ADJ,Krzeminski M,van Dijk M,Thureau A,Hsu V,Wassenaar T,Bonvin AMJJ. HADDOCK versus HADDOCK: new features and performance of HADDOCK2.0 on the CAPRI targets. Proteins 2007; 69: 726–733.
- 73 De Vries SJ,van Dijk M,Bonvin AMJJ. The HADDOCK web server for data-driven biomolecular docking. Nat Protoc 2010; 5: 883–897.
- 74 Mintseris J,Wiehe K,Pierce B,Anderson R,Chen R,Janin J,Weng Z. Protein–protein docking benchmark 2.0: an update. Proteins 2005; 60: 214–216.
- 75 Weng ZP,Hwang H,Vreven T,Janin J. Protein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0. Proteins 2010; 78: 3111–3114.
- 76 Hubbard SJ,Thornton JM. NACCESS. London: Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University College London; 1993.
- 77 Mitra P,Pal D. Using correlated parameters for improved ranking of protein–protein docking decoys. J Comput Chem 2011; 32: 787–796.