Computational design of protein-ligand interfaces: Potential in therapeutic development

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 159-166

  Morin, Andrew ^b   Meiler, Jens ^b   Mizoue, Laura S ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN; CONFORMATIONAL SPACE; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; FUTURE PROSPECTS; LOW-ENERGY DESIGN; PROTEIN THERAPEUTICS; SCORING FUNCTIONS; SEARCH ALGORITHMS; SMALL MOLECULES; SMALL-MOLECULE BINDINGS; TIGHT BINDING;

AMINO ACIDS; BINDING ENERGY; BIOCHEMISTRY; DESIGN; LIGANDS; MOLECULES; PROTEINS;

BINDING SITES;

CETUXIMAB; SCAFFOLD PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; BINDING SITE; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG PROTEIN BINDING; DRUG TARGETING; ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATION; LIGAND BINDING; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN ENGINEERING; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STABILITY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA;

BINDING SITES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG DISCOVERY; LIGANDS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN ENGINEERING; PROTEIN STABILITY; PROTEINS;

EID: 79952707513     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2011.01.002     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Leader B., et al. Protein therapeutics: a summary and pharmacological classification. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2008, 7:21-39.
2. Strohl W.R., Knight D.M. Discovery and development of biopharmaceuticals: current issues. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2009, 20:668-672.
3. Aggarwal S. What's fueling the biotech engine-2008. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27:987-993.
4. Reichert J.M. Antibody-based therapeutics to watch in 2011. MAbs 2011, 3:76-98.
5. Binz H.K., et al. Engineering novel binding proteins from nonimmunoglobulin domains. Nat. Biotechnol. 2005, 23:1257-1268.
6. Gebauer M., Skerra A. Engineered protein scaffolds as next-generation antibody therapeutics. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2009, 13:245-255.
7. Calhoun J.R., et al. Solution NMR structure of a designed metalloprotein and complementary molecular dynamics refinement. Structure 2008, 16:210-215.
8. Fazelinia H., et al. OptGraft: a computational procedure for transferring a binding site onto an existing protein scaffold. Protein Sci. 2009, 18:180-195.
9. Fry H.C., et al. Computational design and elaboration of a de novo heterotetrameric alpha-helical protein that selectively binds an emissive abiological (porphinato)zinc chromophore. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132:3997-4005.
10. Sammond D.W., et al. Computational design of second-site suppressor mutations at protein-protein interfaces. Proteins 2010, 78:1055-1065.
11. Humphris E.L., Kortemme T. Design of multi-specificity in protein interfaces. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2007, 3:1591-1604.
12. Grigoryan G., et al. Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides. Nature 2009, 458:859-864.
13. Yosef E., et al. Computational design of calmodulin mutants with up to 900-fold increase in binding specificity. J. Mol. Biol. 2009, 385:1470-1480.
14. Ashworth J., et al. Computational reprogramming of homing endonuclease specificity at multiple adjacent base pairs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38:5601-5608.
15. Faiella M., et al. An artificial di-iron oxo-protein with phenol oxidase activity. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2009, 5:882-884.
16. Jiang L., et al. De novo computational design of retro-aldol enzymes. Science 2008, 319:1387-1391.
17. Röthlisberger D., et al. Kemp elimination catalysts by computational enzyme design. Nature 2008, 453:190-195.
18. Siegel J.B., et al. Computational design of an enzyme catalyst for a stereoselective bimolecular Diels-Alder reaction. Science 2010, 329:309-313.
19. Dunbrack R. Rotamer libraries in the 21st century. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2002, 12:431-440.
20. Kuhlman B., et al. Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 2003, 302:1364-1368.
21. Desmet J., et al. The dead-end elimination theorem and its use in protein side-chain positioning. Nature 1992, 356:539-542.
22. Metropolis N., et al. Equation of state calculation by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys. 1953, 21:1087-1092.
23. Kirkpatrick S., et al. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 1983, 220:671-680.
24. Allen B.D., Mayo S.L. Dramatic performance enhancements for the FASTER optimization algorithm. J. Comput. Chem. 2006, 27:1071-1075.
25. Desjarlais J.R., Handel T.M. De novo design of the hydrophobic cores of proteins. Protein Sci. 1995, 4:2006-2018.
26. Koehl P. Mean-field minimization methods for biological macromolecules. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 1996, 6:222-226.
27. Mackerell A.D. Empirical force fields for biological macromolecules: overview and issues. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25:1584-1604.
28. Kuhlman B., Baker D. Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2000, 97:10383-10388.
29. Dehouck Y., et al. A new generation of statistical potentials for proteins. Biophys. J. 2006, 90:4010-4017.
30. Lazaridis T., Karplus M. Effective energy function for proteins in solution. Proteins 1999, 35:133-152.
31. Boas F.E., Harbury P.B. Potential energy functions for protein design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2007, 17:199-204.
32. Reynolds K.A., et al. Computational redesign of the SHV-1 beta-lactamase/beta-lactamase inhibitor protein interface. J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 382:1265-1275.
33. Boas F.E., Harbury P.B. Design of protein-ligand binding based on the molecular-mechanics energy model. J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 380:415-424.
34. Teague S.J. Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003, 2:527-541.
35. Totrov M., Abagyan R. Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2008, 18:178-184.
36. Hammes G.G., et al. Conformational selection or induced fit: a flux description of reaction mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:13737-13741.
37. Fu X., et al. Modeling backbone flexibility to achieve sequence diversity: the design of novel alpha-helical ligands for Bcl-xL. J. Mol. Biol. 2007, 371:1099-1117.
38. Allen B.D., et al. Experimental library screening demonstrates the successful application of computational protein design to large structural ensembles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:19838-19843.
39. Davis I.W., et al. The backrub motion: how protein backbone shrugs when a sidechain dances. Structure 2006, 14:265-274.
40. Smith C.A., Kortemme T. Backrub-like backbone simulation recapitulates natural protein conformational variability and improves mutant side-chain prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 380:742-756.
41. Georgiev I., et al. Algorithm for backrub motions in protein design. Bioinformatics 2008, 24:i196-i204.
42. Friedland G.D., et al. A simple model of backbone flexibility improves modeling of side-chain conformational variability. J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 380:757-774.
43. Friedland G.D., et al. A correspondence between solution-state dynamics of an individual protein and the sequence and conformational diversity of its family. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5:1-16.
44. Murphy P.M., et al. Alteration of enzyme specificity by computational loop remodeling and design. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:9215-9220.
45. Meiler J., Baker D. ROSETTALIGAND: protein-small molecule docking with full side-chain flexibility. Proteins 2006, 65:538-548.
46. Hartmann C., et al. Docking and scoring with alternative side-chain conformations. Proteins 2009, 74:712-726.
47. Kaufmann K., et al. Small molecule rotamers enable simultaneous optimization of small molecule and protein degrees of freedom in ROSETTALIGAND Docking. German Conference on Bioinformatics 2008, 148-157. A. Beyer, M. Schroeder (Eds.).
48. Chaudhury S., Gray J.J. Conformer selection and induced fit in flexible backbone protein-protein docking using computational and NMR ensembles. J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 381:1068-1087.
49. Morin, A. et al. (2011) Computational design of an endo-1,4-β-xylanase ligand binding site. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. (in press).
50. Morra G., et al. Selecting sequences that fold into a defined 3D structure: A new approach for protein design based on molecular dynamics and energetics. Biophys. Chem. 2010, 146:76-84.
51. Scarabelli G., et al. Predicting interaction sites from the energetics of isolated proteins: a new approach to epitope mapping. Biophys. J. 2010, 98:1966-1975.
52. Morra G., et al. Dynamics-based discovery of allosteric inhibitors: selection of new ligands for the C-terminal domain of Hsp90. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2010, 6:2978-2989.
53. Li L., et al. Incorporating receptor flexibility in the molecular design of protein interfaces. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2009, 22:575-586.
54. Spiegel K., et al. Structural and dynamical properties of manganese catalase and the synthetic protein DF1 and their implication for reactivity from classical molecular dynamics calculations. Proteins 2006, 65:317-330.
55. Honig B., Nicholls A. Classical electrostatics in biology and chemistry. Science 1995, 268:1144-1149.
56. Bashford D., Case D.A. Generalized born models of macromolecular solvation effects. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2000, 51:129-152.
57. Khoury G.A., et al. Computational design of Candida boidinii xylose reductase for altered cofactor specificity. Protein Sci. 2009, 18:2125-2138.
58. Lippow S.M., et al. Computational design of antibody-affinity improvement beyond in vivo maturation. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25:1171-1176.
59. Jiang L., et al. A " solvated rotamer" approach to modeling water-mediated hydrogen bonds at protein-protein interfaces. Proteins 2005, 58:893-904.
60. Lassila J.K., et al. Origins of catalysis by computationally designed retroaldolase enzymes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:4937-4942.
61. Havranek J.J., Harbury P.B. Automated design of specificity in molecular recognition. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2003, 10:45-52.
62. Bolon D.N., et al. Specificity versus stability in computational protein design. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2005, 102:12724-12729.
63. Ashworth J., et al. Computational redesign of endonuclease DNA binding and cleavage specificity. Nature 2006, 441:656-659.
64. Humphris E.L., Kortemme T. Prediction of protein-protein interface sequence diversity using flexible backbone computational protein design. Structure 2008, 16:1777-1788.
65. Schreier B., et al. Computational design of ligand binding is not a solved problem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:18491-18496.
66. Zanghellini A., et al. New algorithms and an in silico benchmark for computational enzyme design. Protein Sci. 2006, 15:2785-2794.
67. Chica R.A., et al. Generation of longer emission wavelength red fluorescent proteins using computationally designed libraries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:20257-20262.
68. Nannemann D.P., et al. Design and directed evolution of a dideoxy purine nucleoside phosphorylase. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2010, 23:607-616.
69. Skerra A. Alternative non-antibody scaffolds for molecular recognition. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2007, 18:295-304.
70. Grönwall C., Ståhl S. Engineered affinity proteins-generation and applications. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 140:254-269.
71. Schlehuber S., Skerra A. Lipocalins in drug discovery: from natural ligand-binding proteins to " anticalins" Drug Discov. Today 2005, 10:23-33.
72. Beck A., et al. Strategies and challenges for the next generation of therapeutic antibodies. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2010, 10:345-352.
73. Zuraw B., et al. Ecallantide. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9:189-190.
74. Ko M.C., et al. Cocaine esterase: interactions with cocaine and immune responses in mice. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2007, 320:926-933.
75. Cooper Z.D., et al. Rapid and robust protection against cocaine-induced lethality in rats by the bacterial cocaine esterase. Mol. Pharmacol. 2006, 70:1885-1891.
76. Gao D., et al. Thermostable variants of cocaine esterase for long-time protection against cocaine toxicity. Mol. Pharmacol. 2009, 75:318-323.
77. Narasimhan D., et al. Structural analysis of thermostabilizing mutations of cocaine esterase. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2010, 23:537-547.
78. Brim R.L., et al. A thermally stable form of bacterial cocaine esterase: a potential therapeutic agent for treatment of cocaine abuse. Mol. Pharmacol. 2010, 77:593-600.
79. Park J.B., et al. PEGylation of bacterial cocaine esterase for protection against protease digestion and immunogenicity. J. Control. Release 2010, 142:174-179.
80. Alexandrova A.N., et al. Catalytic mechanism and performance of computationally designed enzymes for Kemp elimination. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130:15907-15915.
81. Khersonsky O., et al. Evolutionary optimization of computationally designed enzymes: Kemp eliminases of the KE07 series. J. Mol. Biol. 2010, 396:1025-1042.
82. Ruscio J.Z., et al. The influence of protein dynamics on the success of computational enzyme design. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131:14111-14115.
83. MacDonald J.T., et al. De novo backbone scaffolds for protein design. Proteins 2010, 78:1311-1325.