PIPER: An FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 392-406

  Kozakov, Dima ^a   Brenke, Ryan ^b   Comeau, Stephen R ^b   Vajda, Sandor ^a,b  

^a Boston University   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fast Fourier Transform; Intermolecular potentials; Rigid body docking; Scoring function; Structure based potentials

Indexed keywords

ANTIGEN ANTIBODY COMPLEX; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CORRELATION FUNCTION; ENERGY TRANSFER; ENZYME INHIBITOR COMPLEX; FOURIER TRANSFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE;

ANTIBODIES; ANTIGENS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; ELECTROSTATICS; ENZYME INHIBITORS; FOURIER ANALYSIS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; STATIC ELECTRICITY; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 33749020839     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21117     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 2002;47:409-443.
2. Smith G, Sternberg M. Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2002;12:28-35.
3. Camacho C, Vajda S. Protein-protein association kinetics and protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2002;12:36-40.
4. Vajda S, Camacho C. Protein-protein docking: is the glass half full or half empty? Trends Biotechnol 2004;22:110-116.
5. Katchalski-Katzir E, Shariv I, Eisenstein M, Friesem A, Aflalo C, Vakser I. Molecular surface recognition-determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:2195-2199.
6. Mendez R, Leplae R, De Maria L, Wodak S. Assessment of blind predictions of protein-protein interactions: Current status of docking methods. Proteins 2003;52:51-67.
7. Mendez R, Leplae R, Lensink M, Wodak S. Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3-5 shows progress in docking procedures. Proteins 2005;60:150-169.
8. Fernandez-Recio J, Totrov M, Abagyan R. Soft protein-protein docking in internal coordinates. Protein Sci 2002;11:280-291.
9. Gray J, Moughon S, Wang C, Schueler-Furman O, Kuhlman B, Rohl C, Baker D. Protein-protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. J Mol Biol 2003;331:281-299.
10. Gabb H, Jackson R, Sternberg M. Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics, and biochemical information. J Mol Biol 1997;272:106-120.
11. Mandell J, Roberts V, Pique M, Kotlovyi V, Mitchell J, Nelson E, Tsigelny I, Ten Eyck L. Protein docking using continuum electrostatics and geometric fit. Protein Eng 2001;14:105-113.
12. Chen R, Li L, Weng Z. ZDOCK: an initial-stage protein-docking algorithm. Proteins 2003;52:80-87.
13. Camacho C, Gatchell D, Kimura S, Vajda S. Scoring docked conformations generated by rigid-body protein-protein docking. Proteins 2000;40:525-537.
14. Li L, Cheng R, Weng Z. RDOCK: refinement of rigid-body protein docking predictions. Proteins 2003;53:693-707.
15. Comeau S, Gatchell D, Vajda S, Camacho C. ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes. Bioinformatics 2004;20:45-50.
16. Kozakov D, Clodfelter K, Vajda S, Camacho C. Optimal clustering for detecting near-native conformations in protein docking. Biophys J 2005;89:867-875.
17. Skolnick J, Jaroszewski L, Kolinski A, Godzik A. Derivation and testing of pair potentials for protein folding. When is the quasichemical approximation correct? Protein Sci 1997;6:1-13.
18. Lu H, Skolnick J. A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins 2001; 44:223-232.
19. Godzik A. Knowledge-based potentials for protein folding: what can we learn from known protein structures?. Structure 1996;4:363-366.
20. Miyazawa S, Jernigan R. Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation. Macromolecules 1985;18:534-552.
21. Miyazawa S, Jernigan R. Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Biol 1996;256:623-644.
22. Rojnuckarin A, Subramaniam S. Knowledge-based interaction potentials for proteins. Proteins 1999;36:54-67.
23. Zhou H, Zhou Y. Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction. Protein Sci 2002;11:2714-2726.
24. Moont G, Gabb H, Sternberg M. Use of pair potentials across protein interfaces in screening predicted docked complexes. Proteins 1999;35:364-373.
25. Murphy J, Gatchell D, Prasad J, Vajda S. Combination of scoring functions improves discrimination in protein-protein docking. Proteins 2003;53:840-854.
26. Lu H, Lu L, Skolnick J. Development of unified statistical potentials describing protein-protein interactions. Biophys J 2003;84:1895-1901.
27. Liu S, Zhang C, Zhou H, Zhou Y. A physical reference state unifies the structure-derived potential of mean force for protein folding and binding. Proteins 2004;56:93-101.
28. Zhang C, Vasmatzis G, Cornette J, DeLisi C. Determination of atomic desolvation energies from the structures of crystallized proteins. J Mol Biol 1997;267:707-726.
29. Zhang C, Cornette JL, DeLisi C. Consistency in structural energetics of protein folding and peptide recognition. Protein Sci 1997;6:1057-1064.
30. Keskin O, Bahar I, Badretdinov A, Ptitsyn O, Jernigan R. Empirical solvent-mediated potentials hold for both intra-molecular and inter-molecular inter-residue inter-actions. Protein Sci 1998; 7:2578-2586.
31. Glaser F, Steinberg DM, Vakser IA, Ben-Tal N. Residue frequencies and pairing preferences at protein-protein interfaces. Proteins 2001;43:89-102.
32. Chen R, Mintseris J, Janin J, Weng Z. A protein-protein docking benchmark. Proteins 2003;52:88-91.
33. 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.
34. Jones S, Thornton J. Principles of protein-protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996;93:13-20.
35. LoConte L, Chothia C, Janin J. The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. J Mol Biol 1999;285:2177-2198.
36. Jackson R. Comparison of protein-protein interactions in serine protease-inhibitor and antibody-antigen complexes: implications for the protein docking problem. Protein Sci 1999;8:603-613.
37. Chakrabarti P, Janin J. Dissecting protein-protein recognition sites. Proteins 2002;47:334-343.
38. Lindemann S, Yershova A, LaValle S. Incremental grid sampling strategies in robotics. In Proc. Sixth International Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics; 2004.
39. Vakser I, Aflalo C. Hydrophobic docking: a proposed enhancement to molecular recognition techniques. Proteins 1994;20:320-329.
40. Chen R, Weng Z. Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics. Proteins 2002;47:281-294.
41. Pokarowski P, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan RL, Kothari NS, Pokarowska M, Kolinski A. Inferring ideal amino acid interaction forms from statistical protein contact potentials. Proteins 2005; 59:49-57.
42. Furuichi E, Koehl P. Influence of protein structure databases on the predictive power of statistical pair potentials. Proteins 1998; 31:139-149.
43. Bernauer J, Poupon A, Aze J, Janin J. A docking analysis of the statistical physics of protein-protein recognition. Phys Biol 2005; 2:17-23.
44. Tsunogae Y, Tanaka I, Yamane T, Kikkawa J, Ashida T, Ishikawa C, Watanabe K, Nakamura S, Takahashi K. Structure of the trypsin-binding domain of Bowman-Birk type protease inhibitor and its interaction with trypsin. J Biochem (Tokyo) 1986;100:1637-1646.