Search for: All records

Abstract Antibodies are key proteins produced by the immune system to target pathogen proteins termed antigens via specific binding to surface regions called epitopes. Given an antigen and the sequence of an antibody the knowledge of the epitope is critical for the discovery and development of antibody based therapeutics. In this work, we present a computational protocol that uses template‐based modeling and docking to predict epitope residues. This protocol is implemented in three major steps. First, a template‐based modeling approach is used to build the antibody structures. We tested several options, including generation of models using AlphaFold2. Second, each antibody model is docked to the antigen using the fast Fourier transform (FFT) based docking program PIPER. Attention is given to optimally selecting the docking energy parameters depending on the input data. In particular, the van der Waals energy terms are reduced for modeled antibodies relative to x‐ray structures. Finally, ranking of antigen surface residues is produced. The ranking relies on the docking results, that is, how often the residue appears in the docking poses' interface, and also on the energy favorability of the docking pose in question. The method, called PIPER‐Map, has been tested on a widely used antibody–antigen docking benchmark. The results show that PIPER‐Map improves upon the existing epitope prediction methods. An interesting observation is that epitope prediction accuracy starting from antibody sequence alone does not significantly differ from that of starting from unbound (i.e., separately crystallized) antibody structure. 

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. 

Abstract As a participant in the joint CASP13‐CAPRI46 assessment, the ClusPro server debuted its new template‐based modeling functionality. The addition of this feature, called ClusPro TBM, was motivated by the previous CASP‐CAPRI assessments and by the proven ability of template‐based methods to produce higher‐quality models, provided templates are available. In prior assessments, ClusPro submissions consisted of models that were produced via free docking of pre‐generated homology models. This method was successful in terms of the number of acceptable predictions across targets; however, analysis of results showed that purely template‐based methods produced a substantially higher number of medium‐quality models for targets for which there were good templates available. The addition of template‐based modeling has expanded ClusPro's ability to produce higher accuracy predictions, primarily for homomeric but also for some heteromeric targets. Here we review the newest additions to the ClusPro web server and discuss examples of CASP‐CAPRI targets that continue to drive further development. We also describe ongoing work not yet implemented in the server. This includes the development of methods to improve template‐based models and the use of co‐evolutionary information for data‐assisted free docking. 

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.