Search for: All records

Starting with a crystal structure of a macromolecule, computational structural modeling can help to understand the associated biological processes, structure and function, as well as to reduce the number of further experiments required to characterize a given molecular entity. In the past decade, two classes of powerful automated tools for investigating the binding properties of proteins have been developed: the protein–protein docking program ClusPro and the FTMap and FTSite programs for protein hotspot identification. These methods have been widely used by the research community by means of publicly available online servers, and models built using these automated tools have been reported in a large number of publications. Importantly, additional experimental information can be leveraged to further improve the predictive power of these approaches. Here, an overview of the methods and their biological applications is provided together with a brief interpretation of the results. 

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 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.