skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: ComparePD : Improving protein– DNA complex model comparison with hydrogen bond energy‐based metrics
Abstract Computational modeling of protein–DNA complex structures has important implications in biomedical applications such as structure‐based, computer aided drug design. A key step in developing methods for accurate modeling of protein–DNA complexes is similarity assessment between models and their reference complex structures. Existing methods primarily rely on distance‐based metrics and generally do not consider important functional features of the complexes, such as interface hydrogen bonds that are critical to specific protein–DNA interactions. Here, we present a new scoring function, ComparePD, which takes interface hydrogen bond energy and strength into account besides the distance‐based metrics for accurate similarity measure of protein–DNA complexes. ComparePD was tested on two datasets of computational models of protein–DNA complexes generated using docking (classified as easy, intermediate, and difficult cases) and homology modeling methods. The results were compared with PDDockQ, a modified version of DockQ tailored for protein–DNA complexes, as well as the metrics employed by the community‐wide experiment CAPRI (Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions). We demonstrated that ComparePD provides an improved similarity measure over PDDockQ and the CAPRI classification method by considering both conformational similarity and functional importance of the complex interface. ComparePD identified more meaningful models as compared to PDDockQ for all the cases having different top models between ComparePD and PDDockQ except for one intermediate docking case.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2051491
PAR ID:
10430691
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
Volume:
91
Issue:
8
ISSN:
0887-3585
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 1077-1088
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; (, Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences)
    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
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics)
    Abstract Targets in the protein docking experiment CAPRI (Critical Assessment of Predicted Interactions) generally present new challenges and contribute to new developments in methodology. In rounds 38 to 45 of CAPRI, most targets could be effectively predicted using template‐based methods. However, the server ClusPro required structures rather than sequences as input, and hence we had to generate and dock homology models. The available templates also provided distance restraints that were directly used as input to the server. We show here that such an approach has some advantages. Free docking with template‐based restraints using ClusPro reproduced some interfaces suggested by weak or ambiguous templates while not reproducing others, resulting in correct server predicted models. More recently we developed the fully automated ClusPro TBM server that performs template‐based modeling and thus can use sequences rather than structures of component proteins as input. The performance of the server, freely available for noncommercial use athttps://tbm.cluspro.org, is demonstrated by predicting the protein‐protein targets of rounds 38 to 45 of CAPRI. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics)
    Abstract We present the results for CAPRI Round 54, the 5th joint CASP‐CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round offered 37 targets, including 14 homodimers, 3 homo‐trimers, 13 heterodimers including 3 antibody–antigen complexes, and 7 large assemblies. On average ~70 CASP and CAPRI predictor groups, including more than 20 automatics servers, submitted models for each target. A total of 21 941 models submitted by these groups and by 15 CAPRI scorer groups were evaluated using the CAPRI model quality measures and the DockQ score consolidating these measures. The prediction performance was quantified by a weighted score based on the number of models of acceptable quality or higher submitted by each group among their five best models. Results show substantial progress achieved across a significant fraction of the 60+ participating groups. High‐quality models were produced for about 40% of the targets compared to 8% two years earlier. This remarkable improvement is due to the wide use of the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold2‐Multimer software and the confidence metrics they provide. Notably, expanded sampling of candidate solutions by manipulating these deep learning inference engines, enriching multiple sequence alignments, or integration of advanced modeling tools, enabled top performing groups to exceed the performance of a standard AlphaFold2‐Multimer version used as a yard stick. This notwithstanding, performance remained poor for complexes with antibodies and nanobodies, where evolutionary relationships between the binding partners are lacking, and for complexes featuring conformational flexibility, clearly indicating that the prediction of protein complexes remains a challenging problem. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics)
    Abstract An important question is how well the models submitted to CASP retain the properties of target structures. We investigate several properties related to binding. First we explore the binding of small molecules as probes, and count the number of interactions between each residue and such probes, resulting in a binding fingerprint. The similarity between two fingerprints, one for the X‐ray structure and the other for a model, is determined by calculating their correlation coefficient. The fingerprint similarity weakly correlates with global measures of accuracy, and GDT_TS higher than 80 is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the conservation of surface binding properties. The advantage of this approach is that it can be carried out without information on potential ligands and their binding sites. The latter information was available for a few targets, and we explored whether the CASP14 models can be used to predict binding sites and to dock small ligands. Finally, we tested the ability of models to reproduce protein–protein interactions by docking both the X‐ray structures and the models to their interaction partners in complexes. The analysis showed that in CASP14 the quality of individual domain models is approaching that offered by X‐ray crystallography, and hence such models can be successfully used for the identification of binding and regulatory sites, as well as for assembling obligatory protein–protein complexes. Success of ligand docking, however, often depends on fine details of the binding interface, and thus may require accounting for conformational changes by simulation methods. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics)
    ABSTRACT The heavily used protein–protein docking server ClusPro performs three computational steps as follows: (1) rigid body docking, (2) RMSD based clustering of the 1000 lowest energy structures, and (3) the removal of steric clashes by energy minimization. In response to challenges encountered in recent CAPRI targets, we added three new options to ClusPro. These are (1) accounting for small angle X‐ray scattering data in docking; (2) considering pairwise interaction data as restraints; and (3) enabling discrimination between biological and crystallographic dimers. In addition, we have developed an extremely fast docking algorithm based on 5D rotational manifold FFT, and an algorithm for docking flexible peptides that include known sequence motifs. We feel that these developments will further improve the utility of ClusPro. However, CAPRI emphasized several shortcomings of the current server, including the problem of selecting the right energy parameters among the five options provided, and the problem of selecting the best models among the 10 generated for each parameter set. In addition, results convinced us that further development is needed for docking homology models. Finally, we discuss the difficulties we have encountered when attempting to develop a refinement algorithm that would be computationally efficient enough for inclusion in a heavily used server. Proteins 2017; 85:435–444. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email