Structures of proteins and protein–protein complexes are determined by the same physical principles and thus share a number of similarities. At the same time, there could be differences because in order to function, proteins interact with other molecules, undergo conformations changes, and so forth, which might impose different restraints on the tertiary versus quaternary structures. This study focuses on structural properties of protein–protein interfaces in comparison with the protein core, based on the wealth of currently available structural data and new structure‐based approaches. The results showed that physicochemical characteristics, such as amino acid composition, residue–residue contact preferences, and hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity distributions, are similar in protein core and protein–protein interfaces. On the other hand, characteristics that reflect the evolutionary pressure, such as structural composition and packing, are largely different. The results provide important insight into fundamental properties of protein structure and function. At the same time, the results contribute to better understanding of the ways to dock proteins. Recent progress in predicting structures of individual proteins follows the advancement of deep learning techniques and new approaches to residue coevolution data. Protein core could potentially provide large amounts of data for application of the deep learning to docking. However, our results showed that the core motifs are significantly different from those at protein–protein interfaces, and thus may not be directly useful for docking. At the same time, such difference may help to overcome a major obstacle in application of the coevolutionary data to docking—discrimination of the intramolecular information not directly relevant to docking.
- Award ID(s):
- 1917263
- PAR ID:
- 10350490
- Editor(s):
- Soares, Claudio M.
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS ONE
- Volume:
- 17
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1932-6203
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e0267531
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Abstract -
Abstract Motivation Many important cellular processes involve physical interactions of proteins. Therefore, determining protein quaternary structures provide critical insights for understanding molecular mechanisms of functions of the complexes. To complement experimental methods, many computational methods have been developed to predict structures of protein complexes. One of the challenges in computational protein complex structure prediction is to identify near-native models from a large pool of generated models. Results We developed a convolutional deep neural network-based approach named DOcking decoy selection with Voxel-based deep neural nEtwork (DOVE) for evaluating protein docking models. To evaluate a protein docking model, DOVE scans the protein–protein interface of the model with a 3D voxel and considers atomic interaction types and their energetic contributions as input features applied to the neural network. The deep learning models were trained and validated on docking models available in the ZDock and DockGround databases. Among the different combinations of features tested, almost all outperformed existing scoring functions. Availability and implementation Codes available at http://github.com/kiharalab/DOVE, http://kiharalab.org/dove/. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.more » « less
-
Abstract Protein docking is essential for structural characterization of protein interactions. Besides providing the structure of protein complexes, modeling of proteins and their complexes is important for understanding the fundamental principles and specific aspects of protein interactions. The accuracy of protein modeling, in general, is still less than that of the experimental approaches. Thus, it is important to investigate the applicability of docking techniques to modeled proteins. We present new comprehensive benchmark sets of protein models for the development and validation of protein docking, as well as a systematic assessment of free and template‐based docking techniques on these sets. As opposed to previous studies, the benchmark sets reflect the real case modeling/docking scenario where the accuracy of the models is assessed by the modeling procedure, without reference to the native structure (which would be unknown in practical applications). We also expanded the analysis to include docking of protein pairs where proteins have different structural accuracy. The results show that, in general, the template‐based docking is less sensitive to the structural inaccuracies of the models than the free docking. The near‐native docking poses generated by the template‐based approach, typically, also have higher ranks than those produces by the free docking (although the free docking is indispensable in modeling the multiplicity of protein interactions in a crowded cellular environment). The results show that docking techniques are applicable to protein models in a broad range of modeling accuracy. The study provides clear guidelines for practical applications of docking to protein models.
-
Abstract Structural characterization of protein‐protein interactions is essential for our ability to study life processes at the molecular level. Computational modeling of protein complexes (protein docking) is important as the source of their structure and as a way to understand the principles of protein interaction. Rapidly evolving comparative docking approaches utilize target/template similarity metrics, which are often based on the protein structure. Although the structural similarity, generally, yields good performance, other characteristics of the interacting proteins (eg, function, biological process, and localization) may improve the prediction quality, especially in the case of weak target/template structural similarity. For the ranking of a pool of models for each target, we tested scoring functions that quantify similarity of Gene Ontology (GO) terms assigned to target and template proteins in three ontology domains—biological process, molecular function, and cellular component (GO‐score). The scoring functions were tested in docking of bound, unbound, and modeled proteins. The results indicate that the combined structural and GO‐terms functions improve the scoring, especially in the twilight zone of structural similarity, typical for protein models of limited accuracy.
-
null (Ed.)Physical interactions of proteins play key functional roles in many important cellular processes. To understand molecular mechanisms of such functions, it is crucial to determine the structure of protein complexes. To complement experimental approaches, which usually take a considerable amount of time and resources, various computational methods have been developed for predicting the structures of protein complexes. In computational modeling, one of the challenges is to identify near-native structures from a large pool of generated models. Here, we developed a deep learning–based approach named Graph Neural Network–based DOcking decoy eValuation scorE (GNN-DOVE). To evaluate a protein docking model, GNN-DOVE extracts the interface area and represents it as a graph. The chemical properties of atoms and the inter-atom distances are used as features of nodes and edges in the graph, respectively. GNN-DOVE was trained, validated, and tested on docking models in the Dockground database and further tested on a combined dataset of Dockground and ZDOCK benchmark as well as a CAPRI scoring dataset. GNN-DOVE performed better than existing methods, including DOVE, which is our previous development that uses a convolutional neural network on voxelized structure models.more » « less