Convergence and combination of methods in protein-protein docking

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 164-170

  Vajda, Sandor ^a   Kozakov, Dima ^a  

^a Boston University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

ACCURACY; FOURIER TRANSFORMATION; GEOMETRY; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASES, PROTEIN; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPPING; PROTEINS;

EID: 64549106038     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2009.02.008     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Ritchie D.W. Recent progress and future directions in protein-protein docking. Curr Protein Pept Sci 9 (2008) 1-15
2. Andrusier N., Mashiach E., Nussinov R., and Wolfson H.J. Principles of flexible protein-protein docking. Proteins 73 (2008) 271-289
3. Janin J., Henrick K., Moult J., Eyck L.T., Sternberg M.J., Vajda S., Vakser I., and Wodak S.J. CAPRI: a Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions. Proteins 52 (2003) 2-9
4. Mendez R., Leplae R., De Maria L., and Wodak S.J. Assessment of blind predictions of protein-protein interactions: current status of docking methods. Proteins 52 (2003) 51-67
5. Mendez R., Leplae R., Lensink M.F., and Wodak S.J. Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3-5 shows progress in docking procedures. Proteins 60 (2005) 150-169
6. Lensink M.F., Méndez R., and Wodak SJ. Docking and scoring protein complexes: CAPRI 3rd Edition. Proteins 69 (2007) 704-718. The official assessment of rounds 6-12 of CAPRI quantifies the achievements of the challenge, summarizes the methods tested and concludes that the docking field is making steady progress. The paper also gives an overview of the current state of the art in protein-protein docking.
7. Wiehe K., Pierce B., Tong W.W., Hwang H., Mintseris J., and Weng Z. The performance of ZDOCK and ZRANK in rounds 6-11 of CAPRI. Proteins 69 (2007) 719-725. Experience of the group that was the best overall performer in rounds 1-11 of the CAPRI docking experiment. The newest version of the ZDOCK program includes a pairwise potential in its scoring function, and ZRANK is a new development.
8. Shen Y., Brenke R., Kozakov D., Comeau S.R., Beglov D., and Vajda S. Docking with PIPER and refinement with SDU in rounds 6-11 of CAPRI. Proteins 69 (2007) 734-742. The paper describes PIPER, the first FFT-based docking program with a scoring function which includes a pairwise interaction potential, and SDU, a refinement program which takes into account the funnel-like behavior of the free energy function in a neighborhood of the native state. The group was the second best overall performer in rounds 1-11 of the CAPRI docking experiment.
9. Comeau S.R., Kozakov D., Brenke R., Shen Y., Beglov D., and Vajda S. ClusPro: performance in CAPRI rounds 6-11 and the new server. Proteins 69 (2007) 781-785
10. Fernández-Recio J., Abagyan R., and Totrov M. Improving CAPRI predictions: optimized desolvation for rigid-body docking. Proteins 60 (2005) 308-313
11. Wang C., Schueler-Furman O., Andre I., London N., Fleishman S.J., Bradley P., Qian B., and Baker D. RosettaDock in CAPRI rounds 6-12. Proteins 69 (2007) 758-763. This work describes the extension of RosettaDock to account for the flexibility of backbone in loop regions, and demonstrates that the method improves docking results for some of the CAPRI targets. However, the need for more extensive computations further reduces the region of the conformational space which can be explored, and hence may reduce the quality of results.
12. Schneidman-Duhovny D., Nussinov R., and Wolfson H.J. Automatic prediction of protein interactions with large scale motion. Proteins 69 (2007) 764-773. This work describes the web-based implementation of the FlexDock geometric docking algorithm which is capable of accounting for hinges in the flexible molecule. The algorithm is highly efficient and yielded the best performing server in CAPRI rounds 6-12.
13. Mashiach E., Schneidman-Duhovny D., Andrusier N., Nussinov R., and Wolfson H.J. FireDock: a web server for fast interaction refinement in molecular docking. Nucleic Acids Res 36 (2008) W229-W232
14. Kowalsman N., and Eisenstein M. Inherent limitations in protein-protein docking procedures. Bioinformatics 23 (2007) 421-426
15. de Vries S.J., van Dijk A.D., Krzeminski M., van Dijk M., Thureau A., Hsu V., Wassenaar T., and Bonvin A.M. HADDOCK versus HADDOCK: new features and performance of HADDOCK2.0 on the CAPRI targets. Proteins 69 (2007) 726-733. High Ambiguity Driven biomolecular DOCKing (HADDOCK) is a relative newcomer in CAPRI, but performed extremely well when participating, in spite of using restraints based on literature data and the predictions of interface residues, rather than restraints based on experiments.
16. Hwang H., Pierce B., Mintseris J., Janin J., and Weng Z. Protein-protein docking benchmark version 3.0. Proteins 73 (2008) 705-709. This is the third installment of the benchmark set that became the standard in protein-protein docking and facilitates the comparison of docking methods. The 124 unbound-unbound test cases in Benchmark 3.0 are classified into 88 rigid body cases, 19 medium-difficulty cases, and 17 difficult cases, based on the degree of conformational change at the interface upon complex formation. This is 48% increase relative to Benchmark 2.0. However, some of the binary complexes are actually parts of larger multiprotein structures. Such cases may not properly test the performance of docking algorithms, and hence the benchmark set needs further analysis by the predictor groups.
17. Vajda S. Classification of protein complexes based on docking difficulty. Proteins 60 (2005) 176-180
18. Schneidman-Duhovny D., Inbar Y., Nussinov R., and Wolfson H.J. Geometry-based flexible and symmetric protein docking. Proteins 60 (2005) 224-231
19. Katchalski-Katzir E., Shariv I., Eisenstein M., Friesem A.A., Aflalo C., and Vakser I.A. Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89 (1992) 2195-2199
20. Kozakov D., Brenke R., Comeau S.R., and Vajda S. PIPER: an FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials. Proteins 65 (2006) 392-406. PIPER is the first fast Fourier transform (FFT)-based docking program with a scoring function which includes a structure-based interaction potential. The corresponding energy term is converted to a sum a few correlation functions using the eigenvalue-eigenvector decomposition of the matrix of interaction energy coefficients, which enables energy evaluation by the FFT correlation approach.
21. Mintseris J., Pierce B., Wiehe K., Anderson R., Chen R., and Weng Z. Integrating statistical pair potentials into protein complex prediction. Proteins 69 (2007) 511-520. This work describes the current version of the successful ZDOCK algorithm with a new scoring function which includes a structure-based interaction potential. It uses an optimized alphabet of 12 atom types, but is still less efficient than the eigenvalue-eigenvector decomposition used in PIPER.
22. Fernandez-Recio J., Totrov M., and Abagyan R. ICM-DISCO docking by global energy optimization with fully flexible side-chains. Proteins 52 (2003) 113-117
23. Gray J.J., Moughon S., Wang C., Schueler-Furman O., Kuhlman B., and Baker D. Protein-protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. J Mol Biol 331 (2003) 281-299. This is the main publication describing the successful RosettaDock docking method based on a Monte Carlo minimization algorithm. Owing to the detailed and fairly accurate scoring function and the repacking of interface side chains, RosettaDock can achieve remarkable accuracy, and set a new standard in protein-protein docking for cases in which the information on the binding mode helped to chose appropriate starting conformations for the complex.
24. Wang C., Bradley P., and Baker D. Protein-protein docking with backbone flexibility. J Mol Biol 373 (2007) 503-519
25. Dominguez C., Boelens R., and Bonvin A.M.J.J. HADDOCK: a protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical and/or biophysical information. J Am Chem Soc 125 (2003) 1731-1737
26. Comeau S.R., Gatchell D.W., Vajda S., and Camacho C.J. ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes. Bioinformatics 20 (2004) 45-50. This work describes the first web-based protein-protein-docking server. Since its release in December 2004, the server has performed close to 20 000 docking calculations for more than 2000 users, resulting in over 100 publications.
27. Kozakov D., Clodfelter K.H., Vajda S., and Camacho C.J. Optimal clustering for detecting near-native conformations in protein docking. Biophys J 89 (2005) 867-875
28. Lorenzen S., and Zhang Y. Identification of near-native structures by clustering protein docking conformations. Proteins 68 (2007) 187-194. Comparison of clustering algorithms for picking up near-native docking conformations generated by four FFT-based protein-protein-docking methods. It shows that the ranking based on clustering is better than that by the inherent scoring functions.
29. O'Toole N., and Vakser I.A. Large-scale characteristics of the energy landscape in protein-protein interactions. Proteins 71 (2008) 144-152. Large-scale docking studies show that the number of distinct energy basins is generally small and correlated with the known binding modes, which provides the conceptual basis for retaining a moderate number of the largest clusters for refinement.
30. Chaudhury S., and Gray J.J. Conformer selection and induced fit in flexible backbone protein-protein docking using computational and NMR ensembles. J Mol Biol 381 (2008) 1068-1087
31. Paschalidis I., Shen Y., Vakili P., and Vajda S.S.D.U. A semi-definite programming-based underestimation method for global optimization in molecular docking. IEEE Trans Autom Control 52 (2007) 664-676
32. Shen Y., Paschalidis I., Vakili P., and Vajda S. Protein docking by the underestimation of free energy funnels in the space of encounter complexes. PLoS Comput Biol 4 (2008) e1000191. Given a set of local minima, SDU constructs an underestimating function, selects new points in the conformational space close to the minimum of the underestimator as starting points for local minimization, updates the set of local minima, and iterates these steps until convergence.
33. London N., and Schueler-Furman O. Funnel hunting in a rough terrain. learning and discriminating native energy funnels. Structure 16 (2008) 269-279. A machine-learning algorithm was used to distinguish ensembles of low-energy conformations around the native conformation from other low-energy ensembles. The resulting classifier, FunHunt, identified the native orientation in 50/52 protein complexes in a test set, and showed that the energy decrease of trajectories toward near-native orientations is significantly larger than for other orientations.
34. Kozakov D., Schueler-Furman O., and Vajda S. Discrimination of near-native structures in protein-protein docking by testing the stability of local minima. Proteins 72 (2008) 993-1004. Since structures at narrow minima lose more entropy, some of the non-native states can be detected by determining whether or not a local minimum is surrounded by a broad region of attraction on the energy surface. The analysis is based on starting Monte Carlo minimization (MCM) runs from random points around each minimum, and observing whether a certain fraction of trajectories converge to a small region within the cluster. It was shown that using global docking, dividing the conformational space into clusters and determining the stability of each cluster, the combined approach is less dependent on a priori information than exploring the potential conformational space by MCMs alone.
35. Pierce B., and Weng Z. A combination of rescoring and refinement significantly improves protein docking performance. Proteins 72 (2008) 270-279. This work shows that refining global docking predictions from ZDOCK using RosettaDock, and selecting the best models based on their ZRANK score substantially improves model accuracy.
36. Lorenzen S., and Zhang Y. Monte Carlo refinement of rigid-body protein docking structures with backbone displacement and side-chain optimization. Protein Sci 16 (2007) 2716-2725
37. Cavasotto C.N., Kovacs J.A., and Abagyan R.A. Representing receptor flexibility in ligand docking through relevant normal modes. J Am Chem Soc 127 (2005) 9632-9640
38. Garzón J.I., Kovacs J., Abagyan R., and Chacón P. DFprot: a webtool for predicting local chain deformability. Bioinformatics 23 (2007) 901-902
39. Dobbins S.E., Lesk V.I., and Sternberg M.J. Insights into protein flexibility: the relationship between normal modes and conformational change upon protein-protein docking. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 (2008) 10390-10395
40. Emekli U., Schneidman-Duhovny D., Wolfson H.J., Nussinov R., and Haliloglu T. HingeProt: automated prediction of hinges in protein structures. Proteins 70 (2008) 1219-1227