HotPoint: hot spot prediction server for protein interfaces

The energy distribution along the protein–protein interface is not homogenous; certain residues contribute more to the binding free energy, called ‘hot spots’. Here, we present a web server, HotPoint, which predicts hot spots in protein interfaces using an empirical model. The empirical model incorporates a few simple rules consisting of occlusion from solvent and total knowledge-based pair potentials of residues. The prediction model is computationally efficient and achieves high accuracy of 70%. The input to the HotPoint server is a protein complex and two chain identifiers that form an interface. The server provides the hot spot prediction results, a table of residue properties and an interactive 3D visualization of the complex with hot spots highlighted. Results are also downloadable as text files. This web server can be used for analysis of any protein–protein interface which can be utilized by researchers working on binding sites characterization and rational design of small molecules for protein interactions. HotPoint is accessible at http://prism.ccbb.ku.edu.tr/hotpoint

Composite structural motifs of binding sites for delineating biological functions of proteins

Most biological processes are described as a series of interactions between proteins and other molecules, and interactions are in turn described in terms of atomic structures. To annotate protein functions as sets of interaction states at atomic resolution, and thereby to better understand the relation between protein interactions and biological functions, we conducted exhaustive all-against-all atomic structure comparisons of all known binding sites for ligands including small molecules, proteins and nucleic acids, and identified recurring elementary motifs. By integrating the elementary motifs associated with each subunit, we defined composite motifs which represent context-dependent combinations of elementary motifs. It is demonstrated that function similarity can be better inferred from composite motif similarity compared to the similarity of protein sequences or of individual binding sites. By integrating the composite motifs associated with each protein function, we define meta-composite motifs each of which is regarded as a time-independent diagrammatic representation of a biological process. It is shown that meta-composite motifs provide richer annotations of biological processes than sequence clusters. The present results serve as a basis for bridging atomic structures to higher-order biological phenomena by classification and integration of binding site structures.Comment: 34 pages, 7 figure

HotSprint: database of computational hot spots in protein interfaces

We present a new database of computational hot spots in protein interfaces: HotSprint. Hot spots are residues comprising only a small fraction of interfaces yet accounting for the majority of the binding energy. HotSprint contains data for 35 776 protein interfaces among 49 512 protein interfaces extracted from the multi-chain structures in Protein Data Bank (PDB) as of February 2006. The conserved residues in interfaces with certain buried accessible solvent area (ASA) and complex ASA thresholds are flagged as computational hot spots. The predicted hot spots are observed to correlate with the experimental hot spots with an accuracy of 76%. Several machine-learning methods (SVM, Decision Trees and Decision Lists) are also applied to predict hot spots, results reveal that our empirical approach performs better than the others. A web interface for the HotSprint database allows users to browse and query the hot spots in protein interfaces. HotSprint is available at http://prism.ccbb.ku.edu.tr/hotsprint; and it provides information for interface residues that are functionally and structurally important as well as the evolutionary history and solvent accessibility of residues in interfaces

Molecular Recognition of H3/H4 Histone Tails by the Tudor Domains of JMJD2A: A Comparative Molecular Dynamics Simulations Study

Background: Histone demethylase, JMJD2A, specifically recognizes and binds to methylated lysine residues at histone H3 and H4 tails (especially trimethylated H3K4 (H3K4me3), trimethylated H3K9 (H3K9me3) and di, trimethylated H4K20 (H4K20me2, H4K20me3)) via its tandem tudor domains. Crystal structures of JMJD2A-tudor binding to H3K4me3 and H4K20me3 peptides are available whereas the others are not. Complete picture of the recognition of the four histone peptides by the tandem tudor domains yet remains to be clarified. Methodology/Principal Findings: We report a detailed molecular dynamics simulation and binding energy analysis of the recognition of JMJD2A-tudor with four different histone tails. 25 ns fully unrestrained molecular dynamics simulations are carried out for each of the bound and free structures. We investigate the important hydrogen bonds and electrostatic interactions between the tudor domains and the peptide molecules and identify the critical residues that stabilize the complexes. Our binding free energy calculations show that H4K20me2 and H3K9me3 peptides have the highest and lowest affinity to JMJD2A-tudor, respectively. We also show that H4K20me2 peptide adopts the same binding mode with H4K20me3 peptide, and H3K9me3 peptide adopts the same binding mode with H3K4me3 peptide. Decomposition of the enthalpic and the entropic contributions to the binding free energies indicate that the recognition of the histone peptides is mainly driven by favourable van der Waals interactions. Residue decomposition of the binding free energies with backbone and side chain contributions as well as their energetic constituents identify the hotspots in the binding interface of the structures. Conclusion: Energetic investigations of the four complexes suggest that many of the residues involved in the interactions are common. However, we found two receptor residues that were related to selective binding of the H3 and H4 ligands. Modifications or mutations on one of these residues can selectively alter the recognition of the H3 tails or the H4 tails

Predicting protein-protein interface residues using local surface structural similarity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Identification of the residues in protein-protein interaction sites has a significant impact in problems such as drug discovery. Motivated by the observation that the set of interface residues of a protein tend to be conserved even among remote structural homologs, we introduce <it>PrISE</it>, a family of local structural similarity-based computational methods for predicting protein-protein interface residues.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We present a novel representation of the surface residues of a protein in the form of structural elements. Each structural element consists of a central residue and its surface neighbors. The <it>PrISE </it>family of interface prediction methods uses a representation of structural elements that captures the atomic composition and accessible surface area of the residues that make up each structural element. Each of the members of the <it>PrISE </it>methods identifies for each structural element in the query protein, a collection of <it>similar </it>structural elements in its repository of structural elements and weights them according to their similarity with the structural element of the query protein. <it>PrISE_L</it>relies on the similarity between structural elements (i.e. local structural similarity). <it>PrISE_G</it>relies on the similarity between protein surfaces (i.e. general structural similarity). <it>PrISE_C</it>, combines local structural similarity and general structural similarity to predict interface residues. These predictors label the central residue of a structural element in a query protein as an interface residue if a weighted majority of the structural elements that are similar to it are interface residues, and as a non-interface residue otherwise. The results of our experiments using three representative benchmark datasets show that the <it>PrISE_C</it>outperforms <it>PrISE_L</it>and <it>PrISE_G</it>; and that <it>PrISE_C</it>is highly competitive with state-of-the-art structure-based methods for predicting protein-protein interface residues. Our comparison of <it>PrISE_C</it>with <it>PredUs</it>, a recently developed method for predicting interface residues of a query protein based on the known interface residues of its (global) structural homologs, shows that performance superior or comparable to that of <it>PredUs </it>can be obtained using only local surface structural similarity. <it>PrISE_C</it>is available as a Web server at <url>http://prise.cs.iastate.edu/</url></p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Local surface structural similarity based methods offer a simple, efficient, and effective approach to predict protein-protein interface residues.</p

Specialized dynamical properties of promiscuous residues revealed by simulated conformational ensembles

The ability to interact with different partners is one of the most important features in proteins. Proteins that bind a large number of partners (hubs) have been often associated with intrinsic disorder. However, many examples exist of hubs with an ordered structure, and evidence of a general mechanism promoting promiscuity in ordered proteins is still elusive. An intriguing hypothesis is that promiscuous binding sites have specific dynamical properties, distinct from the rest of the interface and pre-existing in the protein isolated state. Here, we present the first comprehensive study of the intrinsic dynamics of promiscuous residues in a large protein data set. Different computational methods, from coarse-grained elastic models to geometry-based sampling methods and to full-atom Molecular Dynamics simulations, were used to generate conformational ensembles for the isolated proteins. The flexibility and dynamic correlations of interface residues with a different degree of binding promiscuity were calculated and compared considering side chain and backbone motions, the latter both on a local and on a global scale. The study revealed that (a) promiscuous residues tend to be more flexible than nonpromiscuous ones, (b) this additional flexibility has a higher degree of organization, and (c) evolutionary conservation and binding promiscuity have opposite effects on intrinsic dynamics. Findings on simulated ensembles were also validated on ensembles of experimental structures extracted from the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Additionally, the low occurrence of single nucleotide polymorphisms observed for promiscuous residues indicated a tendency to preserve binding diversity at these positions. A case study on two ubiquitin-like proteins exemplifies how binding promiscuity in evolutionary related proteins can be modulated by the fine-tuning of the interface dynamics. The interplay between promiscuity and flexibility highlighted here can inspire new directions in protein-protein interaction prediction and design methods. © 2013 American Chemical Society

Regression applied to protein binding site prediction and comparison with classification

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The structural genomics centers provide hundreds of protein structures of unknown function. Therefore, developing methods enabling the determination of a protein function automatically is imperative. The determination of a protein function can be achieved by studying the network of its physical interactions. In this context, identifying a potential binding site between proteins is of primary interest. In the literature, methods for predicting a potential binding site location generally are based on classification tools. The aim of this paper is to show that regression tools are more efficient than classification tools for patches based binding site predictors. For this purpose, we developed a patches based binding site localization method usable with either regression or classification tools.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We compared predictive performances of regression tools with performances of machine learning classifiers. Using leave-one-out cross-validation, we showed that regression tools provide better predictions than classification ones. Among regression tools, Multilayer Perceptron ranked highest in the quality of predictions. We compared also the predictive performance of our patches based method using Multilayer Perceptron with the performance of three other methods usable through a web server. Our method performed similarly to the other methods.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Regression is more efficient than classification when applied to our binding site localization method. When it is possible, using regression instead of classification for other existing binding site predictors will probably improve results. Furthermore, the method presented in this work is flexible because the size of the predicted binding site is adjustable. This adaptability is useful when either false positive or negative rates have to be limited.</p

Human Cancer Protein-Protein Interaction Network: A Structural Perspective

Protein-protein interaction networks provide a global picture of cellular function and biological processes. Some proteins act as hub proteins, highly connected to others, whereas some others have few interactions. The dysfunction of some interactions causes many diseases, including cancer. Proteins interact through their interfaces. Therefore, studying the interface properties of cancer-related proteins will help explain their role in the interaction networks. Similar or overlapping binding sites should be used repeatedly in single interface hub proteins, making them promiscuous. Alternatively, multi-interface hub proteins make use of several distinct binding sites to bind to different partners. We propose a methodology to integrate protein interfaces into cancer interaction networks (ciSPIN, cancer structural protein interface network). The interactions in the human protein interaction network are replaced by interfaces, coming from either known or predicted complexes. We provide a detailed analysis of cancer related human protein-protein interfaces and the topological properties of the cancer network. The results reveal that cancer-related proteins have smaller, more planar, more charged and less hydrophobic binding sites than non-cancer proteins, which may indicate low affinity and high specificity of the cancer-related interactions. We also classified the genes in ciSPIN according to phenotypes. Within phenotypes, for breast cancer, colorectal cancer and leukemia, interface properties were found to be discriminating from non-cancer interfaces with an accuracy of 71%, 67%, 61%, respectively. In addition, cancer-related proteins tend to interact with their partners through distinct interfaces, corresponding mostly to multi-interface hubs, which comprise 56% of cancer-related proteins, and constituting the nodes with higher essentiality in the network (76%). We illustrate the interface related affinity properties of two cancer-related hub proteins: Erbb3, a multi interface, and Raf1, a single interface hub. The results reveal that affinity of interactions of the multi-interface hub tends to be higher than that of the single-interface hub. These findings might be important in obtaining new targets in cancer as well as finding the details of specific binding regions of putative cancer drug candidates

Structure Collisions between Interacting Proteins

Protein-protein interactions take place at defined binding interfaces. One protein may bind two or more proteins at different interfaces at the same time. So far it has been commonly accepted that non-overlapping interfaces allow a given protein to bind other proteins simultaneously while no collisions occur between the binding protein structures. To test this assumption, we performed a comprehensive analysis of structural protein interactions to detect potential collisions. Our results did not indicate cases of biologically relevant collisions in the Protein Data Bank of protein structures. However, we discovered a number of collisions that originate from alternative protein conformations or quaternary structures due to different experimental conditions

Integrating water exclusion theory into βcontacts to predict binding free energy changes and binding hot spots

10.1186/1471-2105-15-57BMC Bioinformatics151-BBMI