Exploring angular distance in protein-protein docking algorithms

We present a two-stage hybrid-resolution approach for rigid-body protein-protein docking. The first stage is carried out at low-resolution (15 degrees ) angular sampling. In the second stage, we sample promising regions from the first stage at a higher resolution of 6 degrees . The hybrid-resolution approach produces the same results as a 6 degrees uniform sampling docking run, but uses only 17% of the computational time. We also show that the angular distance can be used successfully in clustering and pruning algorithms, as well as the characterization of energy funnels. Traditionally the root-mean-square-distance is used in these algorithms, but the evaluation is computationally expensive as it depends on both the rotational and translational parameters of the docking solutions. In contrast, the angular distances only depend on the rotational parameters, which are generally fixed for all docking runs. Hence the angular distances can be pre-computed, and do not add computational time to the post-processing of rigid-body docking results

Community-Wide Assessment of Protein-Interface Modeling Suggests Improvements to Design Methodology

The CAPRI and CASP prediction experiments have demonstrated the power of community wide tests of methodology in assessing the current state of the art and spurring progress in the very challenging areas of protein docking and structure prediction. We sought to bring the power of community wide experiments to bear on a very challenging protein design problem that provides a complementary but equally fundamental test of current understanding of protein-binding thermodynamics. We have generated a number of designed protein-protein interfaces with very favorable computed binding energies but which do not appear to be formed in experiments, suggesting there may be important physical chemistry missing in the energy calculations. 28 research groups took up the challenge of determining what is missing: we provided structures of 87 designed complexes and 120 naturally occurring complexes and asked participants to identify energetic contributions and/or structural features that distinguish between the two sets. The community found that electrostatics and solvation terms partially distinguish the designs from the natural complexes, largely due to the non-polar character of the designed interactions. Beyond this polarity difference, the community found that the designed binding surfaces were on average structurally less embedded in the designed monomers, suggesting that backbone conformational rigidity at the designed surface is important for realization of the designed function. These results can be used to improve computational design strategies, but there is still much to be learned; for example, one designed complex, which does form in experiments, was classified by all metrics as a non-binder

Binding interface prediction by combining protein-protein docking results

We developed a method called residue contact frequency (RCF), which uses the complex structures generated by the protein-protein docking algorithm ZDOCK to predict interface residues. Unlike interface prediction algorithms that are based on monomers alone, RCF is binding partner specific. We evaluated the performance of RCF using the area under the precision-recall (PR) curve (AUC) on a large protein docking Benchmark. RCF (AUC = 0.44) performed as well as meta-PPISP (AUC = 0.43), which is one of the best monomer-based interface prediction methods. In addition, we test a support vector machine (SVM) to combine RCF with meta-PPISP and another monomer-based interface prediction algorithm Evolutionary Trace to further improve the performance. We found that the SVM that combined RCF and meta-PPISP achieved the best performance (AUC = 0.47). We used RCF to predict the binding interfaces of proteins that can bind to multiple partners and RCF was able to correctly predict interface residues that are unique for the respective binding partners. Furthermore, we found that residues that contributed greatly to binding affinity (hotspot residues) had significantly higher RCF than other residues

Integrating atom-based and residue-based scoring functions for protein-protein docking

Most scoring functions for protein-protein docking algorithms are either atom-based or residue-based, with the former being able to produce higher quality structures and latter more tolerant to conformational changes upon binding. Earlier, we developed the ZRANK algorithm for reranking docking predictions, with a scoring function that contained only atom-based terms. Here we combine ZRANK\u27s atom-based potentials with five residue-based potentials published by other labs, as well as an atom-based potential IFACE that we published after ZRANK. We simultaneously optimized the weights for selected combinations of terms in the scoring function, using decoys generated with the protein-protein docking algorithm ZDOCK. We performed rigorous cross validation of the combinations using 96 test cases from a docking benchmark. Judged by the integrative success rate of making 1000 predictions per complex, addition of IFACE and the best residue-based pair potential reduced the number of cases without a correct prediction by 38 and 27% relative to ZDOCK and ZRANK, respectively. Thus combination of residue-based and atom-based potentials into a scoring function can improve performance for protein-protein docking. The resulting scoring function is called IRAD (integration of residue- and atom-based potentials for docking) and is available at http://zlab.umassmed.edu

Protein-protein docking benchmark version 4.0

We updated our protein-protein docking benchmark to include complexes that became available since our previous release. As before, we only considered high-resolution complex structures that are nonredundant at the family-family pair level, for which the X-ray or NMR unbound structures of the constituent proteins are also available. Benchmark 4.0 adds 52 new complexes to the 124 cases of Benchmark 3.0, representing an increase of 42%. Thus, benchmark 4.0 provides 176 unbound-unbound cases that can be used for protein-protein docking method development and assessment. Seventeen of the newly added cases are enzyme-inhibitor complexes, and we found no new antigen-antibody complexes. Classifying the new cases according to expected difficulty for protein-protein docking algorithms gives 33 rigid body cases, 11 cases of medium difficulty, and 8 cases that are difficult. Benchmark 4.0 listings and processed structure files are publicly accessible at http://zlab.umassmed.edu/benchmark/

Success rate for the standard 6° rotational sampling and the hybrid-resolution approach.

<p>Success rate for the standard 6° rotational sampling and the hybrid-resolution approach.</p

Prediction of protein-protein binding free energies

We present an energy function for predicting binding free energies of protein-protein complexes, using the three-dimensional structures of the complex and unbound proteins as input. Our function is a linear combination of nine terms and achieves a correlation coefficient of 0.63 with experimental measurements when tested on a benchmark of 144 complexes using leave-one-out cross validation. Although we systematically tested both atomic and residue-based scoring functions, the selected function is dominated by residue-based terms. Our function is stable for subsets of the benchmark stratified by experimental pH and extent of conformational change upon complex formation, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.61 to 0.66

Evaluating template-based and template-free protein-protein complex structure prediction

We compared the performance of template-free (docking) and template-based methods for the prediction of protein-protein complex structures. We found similar performance for a template-based method based on threading (COTH) and another template-based method based on structural alignment (PRISM). The template-based methods showed similar performance to a docking method (ZDOCK) when the latter was allowed one prediction for each complex, but when the same number of predictions was allowed for each method, the docking approach outperformed template-based approaches. We identified strengths and weaknesses in each method. Template-based approaches were better able to handle complexes that involved conformational changes upon binding. Furthermore, the threading-based and docking methods were better than the structural-alignment-based method for enzyme-inhibitor complex prediction. Finally, we show that the near-native (correct) predictions were generally not shared by the various approaches, suggesting that integrating their results could be the superior strategy

Performance of ZDOCK in CAPRI rounds 20-26

We report the performance of our approaches for protein-protein docking and interface analysis in CAPRI rounds 20-26. At the core of our pipeline was the ZDOCK program for rigid-body protein-protein docking. We then reranked the ZDOCK predictions using the ZRANK or IRAD scoring functions, pruned and analyzed energy landscapes using clustering, and analyzed the docking results using our interface prediction approach RCF. When possible, we used biological information from the literature to apply constraints to the search space during or after the ZDOCK runs. For approximately half of the standard docking challenges we made at least one prediction that was acceptable or better. For the scoring challenges we made acceptable or better predictions for all but one target. This indicates that our scoring functions are generally able to select the correct binding mode. (c) Proteins 2013;. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc