Cargando…

Benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking

BACKGROUND: Molecular docking studies on protein-peptide interactions are a challenging and time-consuming task because peptides are generally more flexible than proteins and tend to adopt numerous conformations. There are several benchmarking studies on protein-protein, protein-ligand and nucleic a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agrawal, Piyush, Singh, Harinder, Srivastava, Hemant Kumar, Singh, Sandeep, Kishore, Gaurav, Raghava, Gajendra P. S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7394329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30717654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2449-y
_version_ 1783565210552893440
author Agrawal, Piyush
Singh, Harinder
Srivastava, Hemant Kumar
Singh, Sandeep
Kishore, Gaurav
Raghava, Gajendra P. S.
author_facet Agrawal, Piyush
Singh, Harinder
Srivastava, Hemant Kumar
Singh, Sandeep
Kishore, Gaurav
Raghava, Gajendra P. S.
author_sort Agrawal, Piyush
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Molecular docking studies on protein-peptide interactions are a challenging and time-consuming task because peptides are generally more flexible than proteins and tend to adopt numerous conformations. There are several benchmarking studies on protein-protein, protein-ligand and nucleic acid-ligand docking interactions. However, a series of docking methods is not rigorously validated for protein-peptide complexes in the literature. Considering the importance and wide application of peptide docking, we describe benchmarking of 6 docking methods on 133 protein-peptide complexes having peptide length between 9 to 15 residues. The performance of docking methods was evaluated using CAPRI parameters like FNAT, I-RMSD, L-RMSD. RESULT: Firstly, we performed blind docking and evaluate the performance of the top docking pose of each method. It was observed that FRODOCK performed better than other methods with average L-RMSD of 12.46 Å. The performance of all methods improved significantly for their best docking pose and achieved highest average L-RMSD of 3.72 Å in case of FRODOCK. Similarly, we performed re-docking and evaluated the performance of the top and best docking pose of each method. We achieved the best performance in case of ZDOCK with average L-RMSD 8.60 Å and 2.88 Å for the top and best docking pose respectively. Methods were also evaluated on 40 protein-peptide complexes used in the previous benchmarking study, where peptide have length up to 5 residues. In case of best docking pose, we achieved the highest average L-RMSD of 4.45 Å and 2.09 Å for the blind docking using FRODOCK and re-docking using AutoDock Vina respectively. CONCLUSION: The study shows that FRODOCK performed best in case of blind docking and ZDOCK in case of re-docking. There is a need to improve the ranking of docking pose generated by different methods, as the present ranking scheme is not satisfactory. To facilitate the scientific community for calculating CAPRI parameters between native and docked complexes, we developed a web-based service named PPDbench (http://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/ppdbench/). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12859-018-2449-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7394329
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73943292020-08-05 Benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking Agrawal, Piyush Singh, Harinder Srivastava, Hemant Kumar Singh, Sandeep Kishore, Gaurav Raghava, Gajendra P. S. BMC Bioinformatics Research BACKGROUND: Molecular docking studies on protein-peptide interactions are a challenging and time-consuming task because peptides are generally more flexible than proteins and tend to adopt numerous conformations. There are several benchmarking studies on protein-protein, protein-ligand and nucleic acid-ligand docking interactions. However, a series of docking methods is not rigorously validated for protein-peptide complexes in the literature. Considering the importance and wide application of peptide docking, we describe benchmarking of 6 docking methods on 133 protein-peptide complexes having peptide length between 9 to 15 residues. The performance of docking methods was evaluated using CAPRI parameters like FNAT, I-RMSD, L-RMSD. RESULT: Firstly, we performed blind docking and evaluate the performance of the top docking pose of each method. It was observed that FRODOCK performed better than other methods with average L-RMSD of 12.46 Å. The performance of all methods improved significantly for their best docking pose and achieved highest average L-RMSD of 3.72 Å in case of FRODOCK. Similarly, we performed re-docking and evaluated the performance of the top and best docking pose of each method. We achieved the best performance in case of ZDOCK with average L-RMSD 8.60 Å and 2.88 Å for the top and best docking pose respectively. Methods were also evaluated on 40 protein-peptide complexes used in the previous benchmarking study, where peptide have length up to 5 residues. In case of best docking pose, we achieved the highest average L-RMSD of 4.45 Å and 2.09 Å for the blind docking using FRODOCK and re-docking using AutoDock Vina respectively. CONCLUSION: The study shows that FRODOCK performed best in case of blind docking and ZDOCK in case of re-docking. There is a need to improve the ranking of docking pose generated by different methods, as the present ranking scheme is not satisfactory. To facilitate the scientific community for calculating CAPRI parameters between native and docked complexes, we developed a web-based service named PPDbench (http://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/ppdbench/). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12859-018-2449-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7394329/ /pubmed/30717654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2449-y Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Agrawal, Piyush
Singh, Harinder
Srivastava, Hemant Kumar
Singh, Sandeep
Kishore, Gaurav
Raghava, Gajendra P. S.
Benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking
title Benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking
title_full Benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking
title_fullStr Benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking
title_full_unstemmed Benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking
title_short Benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking
title_sort benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7394329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30717654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2449-y
work_keys_str_mv AT agrawalpiyush benchmarkingofdifferentmoleculardockingmethodsforproteinpeptidedocking
AT singhharinder benchmarkingofdifferentmoleculardockingmethodsforproteinpeptidedocking
AT srivastavahemantkumar benchmarkingofdifferentmoleculardockingmethodsforproteinpeptidedocking
AT singhsandeep benchmarkingofdifferentmoleculardockingmethodsforproteinpeptidedocking
AT kishoregaurav benchmarkingofdifferentmoleculardockingmethodsforproteinpeptidedocking
AT raghavagajendraps benchmarkingofdifferentmoleculardockingmethodsforproteinpeptidedocking