Prediction of protein-protein interactions: The CAPRI experiment, its evaluation and implications

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 242-249

  Wodak, Shoshana J ^a   Méndez, Raúl ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES   (Belgium)

Author keywords

CAPRI; CASP; Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions; Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction; EGF; Epidermal growth factor; PDB; Protein Data Bank

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ATOM; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; EXPERIMENTATION; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR MODEL; MUTATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DETERMINATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; REVIEW; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; X RAY ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN FOLDING; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, PROTEIN;

EID: 1842861590     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2004.02.003     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Uetz P., Giot L., Cagney G., Mansfield T.A., Judson R.S., Knight J.R., Lockshon D., Narayan V., Srinivasan M., Pochart P.et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature. 403:2000;623-627.
2. Ito T., Chiba T., Ozawa R., Yoshida M., Hattori M., Sakaki Y. A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 98:2001;4569-4574.
3. Gavin A.C., Bosche M., Krause R., Grandi P., Marzioch M., Bauer A., Schultz J., Rick J.M., Michon A.M., Cruciat C.M.et al. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature. 415:2002;141-147.
4. Ho Y., Gruhler A., Heilbut A., Bader G.D., Moore L., Adams S.L., Millar A., Taylor P., Bennett K., Boutilier K.et al. Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature. 415:2002;180-183.
5. Giot L., Bader J.S., Brouwer C., Chaudhuri A., Kuang B., Li Y., Hao Y.L., Ooi C.E., Godwin B., Vitols E.et al. A protein interaction map of Drosophila melanogaster. Science. 302:2003;1727-1736.
6. Valencia A., Pazos F. Computational methods for the prediction of protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12:2002;368-373.
7. Huynen M.A., Snel B., von Mering C., Bork P. Function prediction and protein networks. Curr. Opin. Cell. Biol. 15:2003;191-198.
8. Salwinski L., Eisenberg D. Computational methods of analysis of protein-protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 13:2003;377-382.
9. Wodak S.J., Janin J. Structural basis of macromolecular recognition. Adv. Protein Chem. 61:2002;9-73.
10. Halperin I., Ma B., Wolfson H., Nussinov R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins. 47:2002;409-443.
11. Smith G.R., Sternberg M.J. Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12:2002;28-35.
12. Wodak S.J., Janin J. Computer analysis of protein-protein interaction. J. Mol. Biol. 124:1978;323-342.
13. Kuntz I.D., Blaney J.M., Oatley S.J., Langridge R., Ferrin T.E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 161:1982;269-288.
14. Burley S.K., Bonanno J.B. Structural genomics. Methods Biochem. Anal. 44:2003;591-612.
15. Venclovas C., Zemla A., Fidelis K., Moult J. Assessment of progress over the CASP experiments. Proteins. 53(suppl 6):2003;585-589.
16. Janin J., Henrick K., Moult J., Eyck L.T., Sternberg M.J., Vajda S., Vakser I., Wodak S.J. CAPRI: a Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions. Proteins. 52:2003;2-9.
17. Mendez R., Leplae R., De Maria L., Wodak S.J. Assessment of blind predictions of protein-protein interactions: current status of docking methods. Proteins. 52:2003;51-67 This paper provides a detailed description of the assessment of the nearly 500 docking predictions submitted by 19 groups for 7 targets in CAPRI rounds 1 and 2. It gives a detailed description of the criteria used to assess the predicted interactions. These criteria have now become a widely accepted standard in the field. The paper also includes a comprehensive summary of present-day docking procedures, and offers good insight into what they can and cannot do.
18. Janin J., Seraphin B. Genome-wide studies of protein-protein interaction. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 13:2003;383-838.
19. Takagi J., Yang Y., Liu J.H., Wang J.H., Springer T.A. Complex between nidogen and laminin fragments reveals a paradigmatic beta-propeller interface. Nature. 424:2003;969-974.
20. Stetefeld J., Mayer U., Timpl R., Huber R. Crystal structure of three consecutive laminin-type epidermal growth factor-like (LE) modules of laminin gamma1 chain harboring the nidogen binding site. J. Mol. Biol. 257:1996;644-657.
21. Comeau S.R., Gatchell D.W., Vajda S., Camacho C.J. ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes. Bioinformatics. 20:2004;45-50.
22. van Tilbeurgh H., Le Coq D., Declerck N. Crystal structure of an activated form of the PTS regulation domain from the LicT transcriptional antiterminator. EMBO J. 20:2001;3789-3799.
23. Fieulaine S., Morera S., Poncet S., Mijakovic I., Galinier A., Janin J., Deutscher J., Nessler S. X-ray structure of a bifunctional protein kinase in complex with its protein substrate HPr. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99:2002;13437-13441.
24. Gray J., Moughon S., Wang C., Schueler-Furman O., Kuhlman B., Rohl C.A., Baker D. Protein-protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. J. Mol. Biol. 331:2003;281-299.
25. Fernandez-Recio J., Totrov M., Abagyan R. ICM-DISCO docking by global energy optimization with fully flexible side-chains. Proteins. 52:2003;113-117.
26. Camacho C.J., Gatchell D.W. Successful discrimination of protein interactions. Proteins. 52:2003;92-97.
27. Fitzjohn P.W., Bates P.A. Guided docking: first step to locate potential binding sites. Proteins. 52:2003;28-32.
28. Smith G.R., Sternberg M.J. Evaluation of the 3D-Dock protein docking suite in rounds 1 and 2 of the CAPRI blind trial. Proteins. 52:2003;74-79.
29. Amadei A., Linssen A.B., Berendsen H.J. Essential dynamics of proteins. Proteins. 17:1993;412-425.
30. Ritchie D.W., Kemp G.J. Protein docking using spherical polar Fourier correlations. Proteins. 39:2000;178-194.
31. Ritchie D.W. Evaluation of protein docking predictions using Hex 3.1 in CAPRI rounds 1 and 2. Proteins. 52:2003;98-106.
32. Schneidman-Duhovny D., Inbar Y., Polak V., Shatsky M., Halperin I., Benyamini H., Barzilai A., Dror O., Haspel N., Nussinov R., Wolfson H.J. Taking geometry to its edge: fast unbound rigid (and hinge-bent) docking. Proteins. 52:2003;107-112.
33. Ben-Zeev E., Berchanski A., Heifetz A., Shapira B., Eisenstein M. Prediction of the unknown: inspiring experience with the CAPRI experiment. Proteins. 52:2003;41-46.
34. Ponstingl H., Henrick K., Thornton J.M. Discriminating between homodimeric and monomeric proteins in the crystalline state. Proteins. 41:2000;47-57.
35. Janin J., Rodier F. Protein-protein interaction at crystal contacts. Proteins. 23:1995;580-587.
36. Mintseris J., Weng Z. Atomic contact vectors in protein-protein recognition. Proteins. 53:2003;629-639 The authors derived atomic contact vectors, representing the relative frequencies of the different atom-atom contacts, as an intuitive way of describing the physico-chemical character of a protein-protein interface. Multivariate analysis and cross-validation are then used to classify interfaces belonging to homodimers and crystal contacts, respectively, with a success rate of 91%. The two types of interfaces are clearly shown to display distinct contact preferences, which were not captured by cruder models.
37. Prasad Bahadur R, Chakrabarti P, Rodier F, Janin J: A dissection of specific and non-specific protein-protein interfaces. J Mol Biol 2004, in press. This study investigates various criteria for distinguishing between specific protein-protein interactions (as in subunit contacts or protein-protein complexes) and nonspecific interactions (those formed between monomers in protein crystals). An interesting finding is that interfaces formed by crystal contacts contain much fewer fully buried atoms, which form more disconnected patches, than the interfaces of specific interactions. Criteria based on this property and on the non-polar character of the interface are proposed for identifying homodimeric proteins in crystal structures.
38. Matthews L.R., Vaglio P., Reboul J., Ge H., Davis B.P., Garrels J., Vincent S., Vidal M. Identification of potential interaction networks using sequence-based searches for conserved protein-protein interactions or 'interologs'. Genome Res. 11:2001;2120-2126.
39. Lichtarge O., Bourne H.R., Cohen F.E. An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. J. Mol. Biol. 257:1996;342-345.
40. Pupko T., Bell R.E., Mayrose I., Glaser F., Ben-Tal N. Rate4Site: an algorithmic tool for the identification of functional regions in proteins by surface mapping of evolutionary determinants within their homologues. Bioinformatics. 18(suppl 1):2002;S71-S77.
41. Lichtarge O., Sowa M.E. Evolutionary predictions of binding surfaces and interactions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12:2002;21-27.
42. Glaser F., Pupko T., Paz I., Bell R.E., Bechor-Shental D., Martz E., Ben-Tal N. ConSurf: identification of functional regions in proteins by surface-mapping of phylogenetic information. Bioinformatics. 19:2003;163-164.
43. Abascal F., Valencia A. Automatic annotation of protein function based on family identification. Proteins. 53:2003;683-692 This work spells out clearly the main problems associated with classical approaches to the inference of function on the basis of sequence similarity. It also presents an automatic protocol for performing the functional annotation of proteins that addresses many of these problems.
44. Zhou H.X., Shan Y. Prediction of protein interaction sites from sequence profile and residue neighbor list. Proteins. 44:2001;336-343.
45. Fariselli P., Pazos F., Valencia A., Casadio R. Prediction of protein-protein interaction sites in heterocomplexes with neural networks. Eur. J. Biochem. 269:2002;1356-1361.
46. Ofran Y., Rost B. Predicted protein-protein interaction sites from local sequence information. FEBS Lett. 544:2003;236-239.
47. Chakrabarti P., Janin J. Dissecting protein-protein recognition sites. Proteins. 47:2002;334-343 This study analyzes the interfaces in 70 protein-protein complexes of known 3D structure and identifies the so-called recognition sites. These are patches of interacting residues of roughly constant size. Standard-size interfaces are composed of a single recognition site, whereas larger interfaces comprise several such sites. The recognition sites contain a core of buried residues with a distinct amino acid composition, a finding that might be useful in identifying potential recognition sites on the protein surface.
48. Pawson T., Nash P. Assembly of cell regulatory systems through protein interaction domains. Science. 300:2003;445-452.
49. Eisenberg D., Marcotte E.M., Xenarios I., Yeates T.O. Protein function in the post-genomic era. Nature. 405:2000;823-826.
50. Pazos F., Valencia A. Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein-protein interaction. Protein Eng. 14:2001;609-614.
51. Pazos F., Helmer-Citterich M., Ausiello G., Valencia A. Correlated mutations contain information about protein-protein interaction. J. Mol. Biol. 271:1997;511-523.
52. Pazos F., Valencia A. In silico two-hybrid system for the selection of physically interacting protein pairs. Proteins. 47:2002;219-227.
53. Tillier E.R., Lui T.W. Using multiple interdependency to separate functional from phylogenetic correlations in protein alignments. Bioinformatics. 19:2003;750-755.
54. Aloy P., Russell R.B. The third dimension for protein interactions and complexes. Trends Biochem. Sci. 27:2002;633-638.
55. Aloy P., Russell R.B. InterPreTS: protein interaction prediction through tertiary structure. Bioinformatics. 19:2003;161-162.
56. Bateman A., Coin L., Durbin R., Finn R.D., Hollich V., Griffiths-Jones S., Khanna A., Marshall M., Moxon S., Sonnhammer E.L.et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:2004;D138-D141.
57. Lu L., Lu H., Skolnick J. MULTIPROSPECTOR: an algorithm for the prediction of protein-protein interactions by multimeric threading. Proteins. 49:2002;350-364.
58. Lu L., Arakaki A.K., Lu H., Skolnick J. Multimeric threading-based prediction of protein-protein interactions on a genomic scale: application to the Saccharomyces cerevisiae proteome. Genome Res. 13:2003;1146-1154.
59. Aloy P., Ceulemans H., Stark A., Russell R.B. The relationship between sequence and interaction divergence in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 332:2003;989-998 This interesting study analyses known protein-protein complexes in order to find out to what extent the mode of interaction between proteins is conserved in the corresponding homologs. The findings indicate that, in general, close homologs with 30-40% sequence identity interact in the same way, whereas apparently unrelated proteins that share the same fold rarely retain the same interactions.
60. Berchanski A., Eisenstein M. Construction of molecular assemblies via docking: modeling of tetramers with D2 symmetry. Proteins. 53:2003;817-829.