A knowledge-based forcefield for protein-protein interface design

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 70, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1540-1550

  Clark, Louis A ^a,b   Van Vlijmen, Herman W T ^a  

^a BIOGEN   (United States)

^b R and D Project Development and Management   (United States)

Author keywords

Antibody; Binding energy; Forcefield; Protein design; Protein protein docking

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATOM; BINDING AFFINITY; CALCULATION; FORCE; FORCE FIELD; KNOWLEDGE BASE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION;

ANTIGEN-ANTIBODY COMPLEX; BINDING SITES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; KNOWLEDGE BASES; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS;

EID: 39749180316     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21694     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Smith GR, Sternberg MJ. Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2002;12:28-35.
2. Vajda S, Vakser IA. Modeling of protein interactions in genomics. Proteins - Struct Funct Genet 2002;47:444-446.
3. Mendez R, Leplae R, Maria LD, Wodak SJ. Assessment of blind predictions of protein-protein interactions: current status of docking methods. Proteins 2003;52:51-67.
4. Vajda S, Camacho CJ. Protein-protein docking: is the glass half-full or half-empty? Trends Biotechnol 2004;22:110-116.
5. Chen R, Li L, Weng Z. ZDOCK: an initial-stage protein-docking algorithm. Proteins 2003;52:80-87.
6. Zacharias M. Protein-protein docking with a reduced protein model accounting for side-chain flexibility. Protein Sci 2003;12:1271-1282.
7. Gray JJ, Moughon S, Wang C, Schueler-furman O, Kuhlman B, Rohl CA, Baker D. Protein-protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. J Mol Biol 2003;331:281-299.
8. Huang PS, Love JJ, Mayo SL. Adaptation of a fast fourier transform-based docking algorithm for protein design. J Comput Chem 2005;26:1222-1232.
9. Tanaka S, Scheraga HA. Medium-and long-range interaction parameters between amino acids for predicting three-dimensional structures of proteins. Macromolecules 1976;9:945-950.
10. Sippl MJ. Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of focal structures in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 1990;213:859-883.
11. Bahar I, Jernigan RL. Inter-residue potentials in globular proteins and the dominance of highly specific hydrophilic interactions at close separation. J Mol Biol 1997;266:195-214.
12. Lu H, Skolnick J. A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins 2001;44:223-232.
13. Summa CM, Levitt M, Degrado WF. An atomic environment potential for use in protein structure prediction. J Mol Biol 2005;352:986-1001.
14. Russ WP, Ranganathan R. Knowledge-based potential functions in protein design. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2002;12:447-452.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Jiang L, Gao Y, Mao F, Liu Z, Lai L. Potential of mean force for protein-protein interaction studies. Proteins 2002;46:190-196.
18. Kortemme T, Morozov AV, Baker D. An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. J Mol Biol 2003;326:1239-1259.
19. Moont G, Gabb HA, Sternberg MJ. Use of pair potentials across protein interfaces in screening predicted docked complexes. Proteins 1999;35:364-373.
20. Lu H, Lu L, Skolnick J. Development of unified statistical potentials describing protein-protein interactions. Biophys J 2003;84:1895-1901.
21. Keskin O, Tsai CJ, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. A new, structurally non-redundant, diverse data set of protein-protein interfaces and its implications. Protein Sci 2004;13:1043-1055.
22. DeLano W. The PyMOL molecular graphics system. DeLano Scientific, 2002. http://www.pymol.org
23. Massova I, Kollman PA. Computational alanine scanning to probe protein-protein interactions: a novel approach to evaluate binding free energies. J Am Chem Soc 1999;121:8133-8143.
24. Williams T, Kelly C. Gnuplot: an interactive plotting program. 2004. http://www.gnuplot.info/ version 4.0, "acspline" option.
25. Hubbard SJ, Thornton JM. Naccess program. 1993. http://wolf.bms.umist.ac. uk/naccess
26. Lee B, Richards FM. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol 1971;55:379-400.
27. Kuhlman B, Baker D. Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000;97:10383-10388.
28. Rosetta software package version 2.1. Available from the University of Washington, Seattle. 2006. http://www.rosettacommons.org/
29. Glaser F, Steinberg DM, Vakser IA, Ben-Tal N. Residue frequencies and pairing preferences at protein-protein interfaces. Proteins 2001;43:89-102.
30. Lo Conte L, Chothia C, Janin J. The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. J Mol Biol 1999;285:2177-2198.
31. Clark LA, Ganesan S, Papp S, Van Vlijmen HW. Trends in antibody sequence changes during the somatic hypermutation process. J Immunol 2006;177:333-340.
32. Wimley WC, Creamer TP, White SH. Solvation energies of amino acid side chains and backbone in a family of host-guest pentapeptides. Biochemistry 1996;35:5109-5124.
33. Chong LT, Duan Y, Wang L, Massova I, Kollman PA. Molecular dynamics and free-energy calculations applied to affinity maturation in antibody 48g7. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999;96:14330-14335.
34. Kollman PA, Massova I, Reyes C, Kuhn B, Huo S, Chong L, Lee M, Lee T, Duan Y, Wang W, Donini O, Cieplak P, Srinivasan J, Case DA, Cheatham TE, III. Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Acc Chem Res 2000;33:889-897.
35. Noskov SY, Lim C. Free energy decomposition of protein-protein interactions. Biophys J 2001;81:737-750.
36. Brooijmans N, Sharp KA, Kuntz ID. Stability of macromolecular complexes. Proteins-Struct Funct Genet 2002;48:645-653.
37. Stites WE. Protein-protein interactions: interface structure, binding thermodynamics, and mutational analysis. Chem Rev 1997;97:1233-1250.
38. Karpusas M, Lucci J, Ferrant J, Benjamin C, Taylor FR, Strauch K, Garber E, Hsu YM. Structure of CD40 ligand in complex with the fab fragment of a neutralizing humanized antibody. Structure 2001;9:321-329.
39. Benson DE, Wisz MS, Hellinga HW. Rational design of nascent metalloenzymes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000;97:6292-6297.
40. Looger LL, Hellinga HW. Generalized dead-end elimination algorithms make large-scale protein side-chain structure prediction tractable: implications for protein design and structural genomics. J Mol Biol 2001;307:429-445.
41. Livingstone CD, Barton GJ. Protein sequence alignments: a strategy for the hierarchical analysis of residue conservation. Comput Appl Biosci 1993;9:745-756.
42. Su A, Mayo SL. Coupling backbone flexibility and amino acid sequence selection in protein design. Protein Sci 1997;6:1701-1707.
43. Clark LA, Boriack-Sjodin PA, Eldredge J, Fitch C, Friedman B, Hanf KJ, Jarpe M, Iparoto SF, Li Y, Lugovskoy A, Miller S, Rushe M, Sherman W, Simon K, Van Vlijmen HW. Affinity enhancement of an in vivo matured therapeutic antibody using structure-based computational design. Protein Sci 2006;15:949-960.