Cargando…

Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking

Proteins are essential elements of biological systems, and their function typically relies on their ability to successfully bind to specific partners. Recently, an emphasis of study into protein interactions has been on hot spots, or residues in the binding interface that make a significant contribu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alsop, James D., Mitchell, Julie C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5054918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25740680
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.24788
_version_ 1782458686654906368
author Alsop, James D.
Mitchell, Julie C.
author_facet Alsop, James D.
Mitchell, Julie C.
author_sort Alsop, James D.
collection PubMed
description Proteins are essential elements of biological systems, and their function typically relies on their ability to successfully bind to specific partners. Recently, an emphasis of study into protein interactions has been on hot spots, or residues in the binding interface that make a significant contribution to the binding energetics. In this study, we investigate how conservation of hot spots can be used to guide docking prediction. We show that the use of evolutionary data combined with hot spot prediction highlights near‐native structures across a range of benchmark examples. Our approach explores various strategies for using hot spots and evolutionary data to score protein complexes, using both absolute and chemical definitions of conservation along with refinements to these strategies that look at windowed conservation and filtering to ensure a minimum number of hot spots in each binding partner. Finally, structure‐based models of orthologs were generated for comparison with sequence‐based scoring. Using two data sets of 22 and 85 examples, a high rate of top 10 and top 1 predictions are observed, with up to 82% of examples returning a top 10 hit and 35% returning top 1 hit depending on the data set and strategy applied; upon inclusion of the native structure among the decoys, up to 55% of examples yielded a top 1 hit. The 20 common examples between data sets show that more carefully curated interolog data yields better predictions, particularly in achieving top 1 hits. Proteins 2015; 83:1940–1946. © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5054918
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50549182016-10-19 Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking Alsop, James D. Mitchell, Julie C. Proteins Articles Proteins are essential elements of biological systems, and their function typically relies on their ability to successfully bind to specific partners. Recently, an emphasis of study into protein interactions has been on hot spots, or residues in the binding interface that make a significant contribution to the binding energetics. In this study, we investigate how conservation of hot spots can be used to guide docking prediction. We show that the use of evolutionary data combined with hot spot prediction highlights near‐native structures across a range of benchmark examples. Our approach explores various strategies for using hot spots and evolutionary data to score protein complexes, using both absolute and chemical definitions of conservation along with refinements to these strategies that look at windowed conservation and filtering to ensure a minimum number of hot spots in each binding partner. Finally, structure‐based models of orthologs were generated for comparison with sequence‐based scoring. Using two data sets of 22 and 85 examples, a high rate of top 10 and top 1 predictions are observed, with up to 82% of examples returning a top 10 hit and 35% returning top 1 hit depending on the data set and strategy applied; upon inclusion of the native structure among the decoys, up to 55% of examples yielded a top 1 hit. The 20 common examples between data sets show that more carefully curated interolog data yields better predictions, particularly in achieving top 1 hits. Proteins 2015; 83:1940–1946. © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-09-29 2015-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5054918/ /pubmed/25740680 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.24788 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Articles
Alsop, James D.
Mitchell, Julie C.
Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking
title Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking
title_full Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking
title_fullStr Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking
title_full_unstemmed Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking
title_short Interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking
title_sort interolog interfaces in protein–protein docking
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5054918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25740680
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.24788
work_keys_str_mv AT alsopjamesd interologinterfacesinproteinproteindocking
AT mitchelljuliec interologinterfacesinproteinproteindocking