Interaction cutoff effect on ruggedness of protein-protein energy landscape

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 70, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1498-1505

  Ruvinsky, Anatoly M ^a   Vakser, Ilya A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Protein docking; Protein modeling; Structure prediction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOINFORMATICS; CALCULATION; COMPLEX FORMATION; ENERGY LANDSCAPE; ENERGY TRANSFER; ENTROPY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

MODELS, CHEMICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 39749142598     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21644     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Dill KA. Polymer principles and protein folding. Protein Sci 1999;8:1166-1180.
2. Wolynes PG. Recent successes of the energy landscape theory of protein folding and function. Quart Rev Biophys 2005;38:405-410.
3. Shoemaker BA, Portman JJ, Wolynes PG. Speeding molecular recognition by using the folding funnel: the fly-casting mechanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000;97:8868-8873.
4. Levy Y, Onuchic JN. Mechanisms of protein assembly: lessons from minimalist models. Acc Chem Res 2006;39:135-114.
5. Tsai C-J, Kumar S, Ma B, Nussinov R. Folding funnels, binding funnels, and protein function. Protein Sci 1999;8:1181-1190.
6. Tovchigrechko A, Vakser IA. How common is the funnel-like energy landscape in protein-protein interactions? Protein Sci 2001;10:1572-1583.
7. McCammon JA. Theory of biomolecular recognition. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1998;8:245-249.
8. Vakser IA. Long-distance potentials: an approach to the multiple-minima problem in ligand-receptor interaction. Protein Eng 1996;9:37-41.
9. Tovchigrechko A, Wells CA, Vakser IA. Docking of protein models. Protein Sci 2002;11:1888-1896.
10. Camacho CJ, Vajda S. Protein docking along smooth association pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:10636-10641.
11. Gray JJ. High-resolution protein-protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006;16:183-193.
12. Fernandez-Recio J, Totrov M, Abagyan R. Identification of protein-protein interaction sites from docking energy landscapes. J Mol Biol 2004;335:843-865.
13. Szilagyi A, Grimm V, Arakaki AK, Skolnick J. Prediction of physical protein-protein interactions. Phys Biol 2005;2:S1-S16.
14. Marshall GR, Vakser IA. Protein-protein docking methods. In: Waksman G, editor. Proteomics and protein-protein interaction: biology, chemistry, bioinformatics, and drug design. New York; Springer; 2005. pp 115-146.
15. Smith GR, Sternberg MJE. Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2002;12:28-35.
16. Wodak SJ, Mendez R. Prediction of protein-protein interactions: the CAPRI experiment, its evaluation and implications. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2004;14:242-249.
17. Janin J. Assessing predictions of protein-protein interaction: the CAPRI experiment. Protein Sci 2005;14:278-283.
18. Lukatsky DB, Zeldovich KB, Shakhnovich EI. Statistically enhanced self-attraction of random patterns. Phys Rev Lett 2006;97:178101.
19. Miller DW, Dill KA. Ligand binding to proteins: the binding landscape model. Protein Sci 1997;6:2166-2179.
20. Vakser IA, Matar OG, Lam CF. A systematic study of low-resolution recognition in protein-protein complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999;96:8477-8482.
21. Straub JE. Optimization techniques with applications to proteins. In: Elber R, editor. New developments in theoretical studies of proteins. Singapore: World Scientific; 1996. pp 137-196.
22. Kostrowicki J, Scheraga HA. Application of the diffusion equation method for global optimization to oligopeptides. J Phys Chem 1992;96:7442-7449.
23. Head-Gordon T, Stillinger FH. Predicting polypeptide and protein structures from amino acid sequence: antlion method applied to melittin. Biopolymers 1993;33:293-303.
24. Hart RK, Pappu RV, Ponder JW. Exploring the similarities between potential smoothing and simulated annealing. J Comput Chem 2000;21:531-552.
25. Stillinger FH, Stillinger DK. Cluster optimization simplified by interaction modification. J Chem Phys 1990;93:6106-6107.
26. Braier PA, Berry RS, Wales DJ. How the range of pair interactions governs features of multidimensional potentials. J Chem Phys 1990;93:8745-8756.
27. Kostrowicki J, Piela L, Cherayil B, Scheraga HA. Performance of the diffusion equation method in searches for optimum structures of clusters of Lennard-Jones atoms. J Phys Chem 1991;95:4113-4119.
28. Amara P, Hsu D, Straub JE. Global energy minimum searches using an approximate solution of the imaginary time Schroedinger equation. J Phys Chem 1993;97:6715-6721.
29. Doye JPK, Wales DJ. The effect of the range of the potential on the structure and stability of simple liquids: from clusters to bulk, from sodium to C60. J Phys B: At Mol Opt Phys 1996;29:4859-4894.
30. Miller MA, Doye JPK, Wales DJ. Structural relaxation in Morse clusters: energy landscapes. J Chem Phys 1999;110:328-334.
31. Whitfield TW, Straub JE. Gravitational smoothing as a global optimization strategy. J Comput Chem 2002;23:1100-1102.
32. Wawak RJ, Wimmer MM, Scheraga HA. Application of the diffusion equation method of global optimization to water clusters. J Phys Chem 1992;96:5138-5145.
33. Vakser IA, Jiang S. Strategies for modeling the interactions of the transmembrane helices of G-protein coupled receptors by geometric complementarity using the GRAMM computer algorithm. Methods Enzymol 2002;343:313-328.
34. Pappu RV, Marshall GR, Ponder JW. A potential smoothing algorithm accurately predicts transmembrane helix packing. Nat Struct Biol 1999;6:50-55.
35. Allen MP, Tildesley DJ. Computer simulations of liquids. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1987.
36. Brooks CL, Pettitt BM, Karplus M. Structural and energetic effects of truncating long ranged interactions in ionic and polar fluids. J Chem Phys 1985;83:5897-5908.
37. Levitt M. Molecular dynamics of macromolecules in water. Chem Scr A 1989;29:197-203.
38. Loncharich RJ, Brooks BR. The effects of truncating long-range forces on protein dynamics. Proteins 1989;6:32-45.
39. Smith PE, Pettitt MB. Peptides in ionic solutions: a comparison of the Ewald and switching function techniques. J Chem Phys 1991;95:8430-8441.
40. Brooks CL. Thermodynamics of ionic solvation: Monte Carlo simulations of aqueous chloride and bromide ions. J Phys Chem 1986;90:6680-6684.
41. Ruvinsky AM, Kozintsev AV. The key role of atom types, reference states, and interaction cutoff radii in the knowledge-based method: new variational approach. Proteins 2005;58:845-851.
42. Finkelstein AV, Janin J. The price of lost freedom: entropy of bimolecular complex formation. Protein Eng 1989;3:1-3.
43. Minh DDL, Bui JM, Chang CE, Jain T, Swanson JMJ, McCammon JA. The entropic cost of protein-protein association: a case study on acetylcholinesterase binding to fasciculin-2. Biophys J Biophys Lett 2005;89:L25-L27.
44. Ruvinsky AM, Kozintsev AV. New and fast statistical-thermodynamic method for computation of protein-ligand binding entropy substantially improves docking accuracy J Comput Chem 2005;26:1089-1095.
45. Ruvinsky AM. The role of binding entropy in the refinement of docking predictions: an analysis based on use of 11 scoring functions. J Comput Chem 2007;28:1364-1372.
46. 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.
47. Katchalski-Katzir E, Shariv I, Eisenstein M, Friesem AA, Aflalo C, Vakser IA. Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:2195-2199.
48. Vakser IA, Aflalo C Hydrophobic docking: a proposed enhancement to molecular recognition techniques. Proteins 1994;20:320-329.
49. Vakser IA. Protein docking for low-resolution structures. Protein Eng 1995;8:371-377.
50. Schafer H, Van Gunsteren WF, Mark AE. Estimating relative free energies from a single ensemble: hydration free energies. J Comput Chem 1999;20:1604-1617.