Search for: All records

The goal of this paper is predicting the conformational distributions of ligand binding sites using the AlphaFold2 (AF2) protein structure prediction program with stochastic subsampling of the multiple sequence alignment (MSA). We explored the opening of cryptic ligand binding sites in 16 proteins, where the closed and open conformations define the expected extreme points of the conformational variation. Due to the many structures of these proteins in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), we were able to study whether the distribution of X-ray structures affects the distribution of AF2 models. We have found that AF2 generates both a cluster of open and a cluster of closed models for proteins that have comparable numbers of open and closed structures in the PDB and not too many other conformations. This was observed even with default MSA parameters, thus without further subsampling. In contrast, with the exception of a single protein, AF2 did not yield multiple clusters of conformations for proteins that had imbalanced numbers of open and closed structures in the PDB, or had substantial numbers of other structures. Subsampling improved the results only for a single protein, but very shallow MSA led to incorrect structures. The ability of generating both open and closed conformations for six out of the 16 proteins agrees with the success rates of similar studies reported in the literature. However, we showed that this partial success is due to AF2 “remembering” the conformational distributions in the PDB and that the approach fails to predict rarely seen conformations. 

Abstract In computational biology, accurate prediction of phosphopeptide-protein complex structures is essential for understanding cellular functions and advancing drug discovery and personalized medicine. While AlphaFold has significantly improved protein structure prediction, it faces accuracy challenges in predicting structures of complexes involving phosphopeptides possibly due to structural variations introduced by phosphorylation in the peptide component. Our study addresses this limitation by refining AlphaFold to improve its accuracy in modeling these complex structures. We employed weighted metrics for a comprehensive evaluation across various protein families. The enhanced model notably outperforms the original AlphaFold, showing a substantial increase in the weighted average local distance difference test (lDDT) scores for peptides: from 52.74 to 76.51 in the Top 1 model and from 56.32 to 77.91 in the Top 5 model. These advancements not only deepen our understanding of the role of phosphorylation in cellular signaling but also have extensive implications for biological research and the development of innovative therapies. 

Predicting protein side-chains is important for both protein structure prediction and protein design. Modeling approaches to predict side-chains such as SCWRL4 have become one of the most widely used tools of its type due to fast and highly accurate predictions. Motivated by the recent success of AlphaFold2 in CASP14, our group adapted a 3D equivariant neural network architecture to predict protein side-chain conformations, specifically within a protein-protein interface, a problem that has not been fully addressed by AlphaFold2. 

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 In the ligand prediction category of CASP15, the challenge was to predict the positions and conformations of small molecules binding to proteins that were provided as amino acid sequences or as models generated by the AlphaFold2 program. For most targets, we used our template‐based ligand docking program ClusPro ligTBM, also implemented as a public server available athttps://ligtbm.cluspro.org/. Since many targets had multiple chains and a number of ligands, several templates, and some manual interventions were required. In a few cases, no templates were found, and we had to use direct docking using the Glide program. Nevertheless, ligTBM was shown to be a very useful tool, and by any ranking criteria, our group was ranked among the top five best‐performing teams. In fact, all the best groups used template‐based docking methods. Thus, it appears that the AlphaFold2‐generated models, despite the high accuracy of the predicted backbone, have local differences from the x‐ray structure that make the use of direct docking methods more challenging. The results of CASP15 confirm that this limitation can be frequently overcome by homology‐based docking. 

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.