SCOPPI: a structural classification of protein–protein interfaces

SCOPPI, the structural classification of protein–protein interfaces, is a comprehensive database that classifies and annotates domain interactions derived from all known protein structures. SCOPPI applies SCOP domain definitions and a distance criterion to determine inter-domain interfaces. Using a novel method based on multiple sequence and structural alignments of SCOP families, SCOPPI presents a comprehensive geometrical classification of domain interfaces. Various interface characteristics such as number, type and position of interacting amino acids, conservation, interface size, and permanent or transient nature of the interaction are further provided. Proteins in SCOPPI are annotated with Gene Ontology terms, and the ontology can be used to quickly browse SCOPPI. Screenshots are available for every interface and its participating domains. Here, we describe contents and features of the web-based user interface as well as the underlying methods used to generate SCOPPI's data. In addition, we present a number of examples where SCOPPI becomes a useful tool to analyze viral mimicry of human interface binding sites, gene fusion events, conservation of interface residues and diversity of interface localizations. SCOPPI is available at

A protein domain interaction interface database: InterPare.

BACKGROUND: Most proteins function by interacting with other molecules. Their interaction interfaces are highly conserved throughout evolution to avoid undesirable interactions that lead to fatal disorders in cells. Rational drug discovery includes computational methods to identify the interaction sites of lead compounds to the target molecules. Identifying and classifying protein interaction interfaces on a large scale can help researchers discover drug targets more efficiently. DESCRIPTION: We introduce a large-scale protein domain interaction interface database called InterPare http://interpare.net. It contains both inter-chain (between chains) interfaces and intra-chain (within chain) interfaces. InterPare uses three methods to detect interfaces: 1) the geometric distance method for checking the distance between atoms that belong to different domains, 2) Accessible Surface Area (ASA), a method for detecting the buried region of a protein that is detached from a solvent when forming multimers or complexes, and 3) the Voronoi diagram, a computational geometry method that uses a mathematical definition of interface regions. InterPare includes visualization tools to display protein interior, surface, and interaction interfaces. It also provides statistics such as the amino acid propensities of queried protein according to its interior, surface, and interface region. The atom coordinates that belong to interface, surface, and interior regions can be downloaded from the website. CONCLUSION: InterPare is an open and public database server for protein interaction interface information. It contains the large-scale interface data for proteins whose 3D-structures are known. As of November 2004, there were 10,583 (Geometric distance), 10,431 (ASA), and 11,010 (Voronoi diagram) entries in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) containing interfaces, according to the above three methods. In the case of the geometric distance method, there are 31,620 inter-chain domain-domain interaction interfaces and 12,758 intra-chain domain-domain interfaces

TSEMA: interactive prediction of protein pairings between interacting families

An entire family of methodologies for predicting protein interactions is based on the observed fact that families of interacting proteins tend to have similar phylogenetic trees due to co-evolution. One application of this concept is the prediction of the mapping between the members of two interacting protein families (which protein within one family interacts with which protein within the other). The idea is that the real mapping would be the one maximizing the similarity between the trees. Since the exhaustive exploration of all possible mappings is not feasible for large families, current approaches use heuristic techniques which do not ensure the best solution to be found. This is why it is important to check the results proposed by heuristic techniques and to manually explore other solutions. Here we present TSEMA, the server for efficient mapping assessment. This system calculates an initial mapping between two families of proteins based on a Monte Carlo approach and allows the user to interactively modify it based on performance figures and/or specific biological knowledge. All the explored mappings are graphically shown over a representation of the phylogenetic trees. The system is freely available at . Standalone versions of the software behind the interface are available upon request from the authors

PiSite: a database of protein interaction sites using multiple binding states in the PDB

The vast accumulation of protein structural data has now facilitated the observation of many different complexes in the PDB for the same protein. Therefore, a single protein complex is not sufficient to identify their interaction sites, especially for proteins with multiple binding states or different partners, such as hub proteins. PiSite is a database that provides protein–protein interaction sites at the residue level with consideration of multiple complexes at the same time, by mapping the binding sites of all complexes containing the same protein in the PDB. PiSite provides easy web interfaces with an interactive viewer working with typical web browsers, and the different binding modes can be checked visually. All of the information can also be downloaded for further analyses. In addition, PiSite provides a list of proteins with multiple binding partners and multiple binding states, as well as up-to-date statistics of protein–protein interfaces. PiSite is available at http://pisite.hgc.j

Co-evolution and co-adaptation in protein networks

AbstractInteracting or functionally related proteins have been repeatedly shown to have similar phylogenetic trees. Two main hypotheses have been proposed to explain this fact. One involves compensatory changes between the two protein families (co-adaptation). The other states that the tree similarity may be an indirect consequence of the involvement of the two proteins in similar cellular process, which in turn would be reflected by similar evolutionary pressure on the corresponding sequences. There are published data supporting both propositions, and currently the available information is compatible with both hypotheses being true, in an scenario in which both sets of forces are shaping the tree similarity at different levels

Ontological visualization of protein-protein interactions

BACKGROUND: Cellular processes require the interaction of many proteins across several cellular compartments. Determining the collective network of such interactions is an important aspect of understanding the role and regulation of individual proteins. The Gene Ontology (GO) is used by model organism databases and other bioinformatics resources to provide functional annotation of proteins. The annotation process provides a mechanism to document the binding of one protein with another. We have constructed protein interaction networks for mouse proteins utilizing the information encoded in the GO annotations. The work reported here presents a methodology for integrating and visualizing information on protein-protein interactions. RESULTS: GO annotation at Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) captures 1318 curated, documented interactions. These include 129 binary interactions and 125 interaction involving three or more gene products. Three networks involve over 30 partners, the largest involving 109 proteins. Several tools are available at MGI to visualize and analyze these data. CONCLUSIONS: Curators at the MGI database annotate protein-protein interaction data from experimental reports from the literature. Integration of these data with the other types of data curated at MGI places protein binding data into the larger context of mouse biology and facilitates the generation of new biological hypotheses based on physical interactions among gene products

Why Should We Care About Molecular Coevolution?

Non-independent evolution of amino acid sites has become a noticeable limitation of most methods aimed at identifying selective constraints at functionally important amino acid sites or protein regions. The need for a generalised framework to account for non-independence of amino acid sites has fuelled the design and development of new mathematical models and computational tools centred on resolving this problem. Molecular coevolution is one of the most active areas of research, with an increasing rate of new models and methods being developed everyday. Both parametric and non-parametric methods have been developed to account for correlated variability of amino acid sites. These methods have been utilised for detecting phylogenetic, functional and structural coevolution as well as to identify surfaces of amino acid sites involved in protein-protein interactions. Here we discuss and briefly describe these methods, and identify their advantages and limitations

Protein co-evolution, co-adaptation and interactions

Co-evolution has an important function in the evolution of species and it is clearly manifested in certain scenarios such as host–parasite and predator–prey interactions, symbiosis and mutualism. The extrapolation of the concepts and methodologies developed for the study of species co-evolution at the molecular level has prompted the development of a variety of computational methods able to predict protein interactions through the characteristics of co-evolution. Particularly successful have been those methods that predict interactions at the genomic level based on the detection of pairs of protein families with similar evolutionary histories (similarity of phylogenetic trees: mirrortree). Future advances in this field will require a better understanding of the molecular basis of the co-evolution of protein families. Thus, it will be important to decipher the molecular mechanisms underlying the similarity observed in phylogenetic trees of interacting proteins, distinguishing direct specific molecular interactions from other general functional constraints. In particular, it will be important to separate the effects of physical interactions within protein complexes (‘co-adaptation') from other forces that, in a less specific way, can also create general patterns of co-evolution