Sense and simplicity in HADDOCK scoring: Lessons from CASP-CAPRI round 1

Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 417-423

  Vangone, A ^a   Rodrigues, J P G L M ^a   Xue, L C ^a   van Zundert, G C P ^a   Geng, C ^a   Kurkcuoglu, Z ^a   Nellen, M ^a   Narasimhan, S ^a   Karaca, E ^a,b   van Dijk, M ^a,c   Melquiond, A S J ^a   Visscher, K M ^a,c   Trellet, M ^a   Kastritis, P L ^a,b   Bonvin, A M J J ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY   (Germany)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

biomolecular complexes; data driven docking; desolvation energy; docking; electrostatics; ranking; scoring functions; van der Waals energy

Indexed keywords

AB INITIO CALCULATION; ARTICLE; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SOFTWARE; STATIC ELECTRICITY; ALGORITHM; BENCHMARKING; BINDING SITE; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN DATABASE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY; THERMODYNAMICS; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

PROTEIN; PROTEIN BINDING;

ALGORITHMS; BENCHMARKING; BINDING SITES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, X-RAY; DATABASES, PROTEIN; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPPING; PROTEINS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOFTWARE; STATIC ELECTRICITY; STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY, PROTEIN; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 85012993507     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.25198     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alberts B. The cell as a collection of protein machines: preparing the next generation of molecular biologists. Cell 1998;92:291–294.
2. Vidal M, Cusick ME, Barabási A-L. Interactome networks and human disease. J Mol Biol 2011;144:986–998.
3. Chruszcz M, Domagalski M, Osinski T, Wlodawer A, Minor W. Unmet challenges of structural genomics. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2010;20:587–597.
4. Aloy P, Russell RB. Structural systems biology: modelling protein interactions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2006;7:188–197.
5. Janin J, Henrick K, Moult J, Eyck LT, Sternberg MJE, Vajda S, Vakser I, Wodak SJ. CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions. Proteins 2003;52:2–9.
6. Moult J, Fidelis K, Kryshtafovych A, Schwede T, Tramontano A. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)—round X. Proteins 2014;82:1–6.
7. Moult J, Pedersen JT, Judson R, Fidelis K. A large-scale experiment to assess protein structure prediction methods. Proteins 1995;23:ii–iv.
8. Dominguez C, Rolf Boelens A, Bonvin AMJJ. HADDOCK: a protein−protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. J Am Chem Soc 2003;125:1731–1737.
9. de Vries SJ, Melquiond ASJ, Kastritis PL, Karaca E, Bordogna A, van Dijk M, Rodrigues JPGLM, Bonvin AMJJ. Strengths and weaknesses of data-driven docking in critical assessment of prediction of interactions. Proteins 2010;78:3242–3249.
10. de Vries SJ, van Dijk ADJ, Krzeminski M, van Dijk M, Thureau A, Hsu V, Wassenaar T, Bonvin AMJJ. HADDOCK versus HADDOCK: new features and performance of HADDOCK2.0 on the CAPRI targets. Proteins 2007;69:726–733.
11. Lensink MF, Moal IH, Bates PA, Kastritis PL, Melquiond ASJ, Karaca E, Schmitz C, Dijk M, Bonvin AMJJ, Eisenstein M, et al. Blind prediction of interfacial water positions in CAPRI. Proteins 2014;82:620–632.
12. Rodrigues JPGLM, Melquiond ASJ, Karaca E, Trellet M, Dijk M, Zundert GCP, Schmitz C, Vries SJ, Bordogna A, Bonati L, et al. Defining the limits of homology modeling in information-driven protein docking, Vol. 81. In: Bonvin AMJJ, Janin J, Wodak SJ, editors; 2013. pp 2119–2128.
13. van Dijk ADJ, De Vries SJ, Dominguez C, Chen H, Zhou HX, Bonvin AMJJ. Data-driven docking: HADDOCK’s adventures in CAPRI, Vol. 60. In: Janin J, editor; 2005. pp 232–238.
14. Jorgensen WL, Tirado-Rives J. The OPLS [Optimized Potentials for Liquid Simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. J Am Chem Soc 1988;110:1657–1666.
15. Fernández-Recio J, Totrov M, Abagyan R. Identification of protein–protein interaction sites from docking energy landscapes. J Mol Biol 2004;335:843–865.
16. Lensink MF, Velankar S, Kryshtafovych A, Huang SY, Schneidman Duhovny D, Sali A, Segura J, Fernandez Fuentes N, Viswanath S, Elber R, et al. Prediction of homoprotein and heteroprotein complexes by protein docking and template-based modeling. A CASP-CAPRI experiment. Proteins 2016;84(suppl 1):323–348.
17. van Zundert GCP, Rodrigues JPGLM, Trellet M, Schmitz C, Kastritis PL, Karaca E, Melquiond ASJ, van Dijk M, De Vries SJ, Bonvin AMJJ. The HADDOCK2.2 web server: user-friendly integrative modeling of biomolecular complexes 2016;428:720–725.
18. Briinger AT, Adams PD, Clore GM, DeLano WL. Crystallography & NMR system: a new software suite for macromolecular structure determination. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 1998;54:905–921.
19. Rodrigues JPGLM, Karaca E, Bonvin AMJJ. Information-driven structural modelling of protein–protein interactions. In: Molecular modeling of proteins. Vol. 1215. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014. pp. 399–424; 26 p. (Methods in Molecular Biology).
20. Rodrigues JPGLM, Trellet M, Schmitz C, Kastritis P, Karaca E, Melquiond ASJ, Bonvin AMJJ. Clustering biomolecular complexes by residue contacts similarity. Proteins 2012;80:1810–1817.
21. Xue LC, Dobbs D, Honavar V. HomPPI: a class of sequence homology based protein-protein interface prediction methods. BMC Bioinform 2011;12:244.
22. Kastritis PL, Bonvin AMJJ. Are scoring functions in protein−protein docking ready to predict interactomes? Clues from a novel binding affinity benchmark. J Proteome Res 2010;9:2216–2225.
23. Xue LC, Rodrigues JPGLM, Dobbs D, Honavar V, Bonvin AMJJ. Template-based protein–protein docking exploiting pairwise interfacial residue restraints. Brief Bioinform, 2016; pii: bbw027.
24. Schneider H-J. Linear free energy relationships and pairwise interactions in supramolecular chemistry. Chem Soc Rev 1994;23:227–234.
25. Krissinel E, Henrick K. Detection of protein assemblies in crystals. In: Computational life sciences, Vol. 3695. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2005. pp. 163–174; 12 p. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).
26. 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.
27. Anishchenko I, Kundrotas PJ, Tuzikov AV, Vakser IA. Protein models docking benchmark 2. Proteins 2015;83:891–897.
28. Bohnuud T, Luo L, Wodak SJ, Bonvin AMJJ, Weng Z, Vajda S, Schueler Furman O, Kozakov D. A benchmark testing ground for integrating homology modeling and protein docking. Proteins 2016; doi:10.1002/prot.25063.
29. The MathWorks, Inc. MATLAB and Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox Release 2014b. Natick, Massachusetts, United States.