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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |