Cargando…

Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures

We present the application of seven binding-site prediction algorithms to a meticulously curated dataset of ligand-bound and ligand-free crystal structures for 304 unique protein sequences (2528 crystal structures). We probe the influence of starting protein structures on the results of binding-site...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clark, Jordan J., Orban, Zachary J., Carlson, Heather A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7522209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32985584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72906-7
_version_ 1783588128916766720
author Clark, Jordan J.
Orban, Zachary J.
Carlson, Heather A.
author_facet Clark, Jordan J.
Orban, Zachary J.
Carlson, Heather A.
author_sort Clark, Jordan J.
collection PubMed
description We present the application of seven binding-site prediction algorithms to a meticulously curated dataset of ligand-bound and ligand-free crystal structures for 304 unique protein sequences (2528 crystal structures). We probe the influence of starting protein structures on the results of binding-site prediction, so the dataset contains a minimum of two ligand-bound and two ligand-free structures for each protein. We use this dataset in a brief survey of five geometry-based, one energy-based, and one machine-learning-based methods: Surfnet, Ghecom, LIGSITE(csc), Fpocket, Depth, AutoSite, and Kalasanty. Distributions of the F scores and Matthew’s correlation coefficients for ligand-bound versus ligand-free structure performance show no statistically significant difference in structure type versus performance for most methods. Only Fpocket showed a statistically significant but low magnitude enhancement in performance for holo structures. Lastly, we found that most methods will succeed on some crystal structures and fail on others within the same protein family, despite all structures being relatively high-quality structures with low structural variation. We expected better consistency across varying protein conformations of the same sequence. Interestingly, the success or failure of a given structure cannot be predicted by quality metrics such as resolution, Cruickshank Diffraction Precision index, or unresolved residues. Cryptic sites were also examined.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7522209
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75222092020-09-29 Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures Clark, Jordan J. Orban, Zachary J. Carlson, Heather A. Sci Rep Article We present the application of seven binding-site prediction algorithms to a meticulously curated dataset of ligand-bound and ligand-free crystal structures for 304 unique protein sequences (2528 crystal structures). We probe the influence of starting protein structures on the results of binding-site prediction, so the dataset contains a minimum of two ligand-bound and two ligand-free structures for each protein. We use this dataset in a brief survey of five geometry-based, one energy-based, and one machine-learning-based methods: Surfnet, Ghecom, LIGSITE(csc), Fpocket, Depth, AutoSite, and Kalasanty. Distributions of the F scores and Matthew’s correlation coefficients for ligand-bound versus ligand-free structure performance show no statistically significant difference in structure type versus performance for most methods. Only Fpocket showed a statistically significant but low magnitude enhancement in performance for holo structures. Lastly, we found that most methods will succeed on some crystal structures and fail on others within the same protein family, despite all structures being relatively high-quality structures with low structural variation. We expected better consistency across varying protein conformations of the same sequence. Interestingly, the success or failure of a given structure cannot be predicted by quality metrics such as resolution, Cruickshank Diffraction Precision index, or unresolved residues. Cryptic sites were also examined. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7522209/ /pubmed/32985584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72906-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Clark, Jordan J.
Orban, Zachary J.
Carlson, Heather A.
Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures
title Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures
title_full Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures
title_fullStr Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures
title_full_unstemmed Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures
title_short Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures
title_sort predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7522209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32985584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72906-7
work_keys_str_mv AT clarkjordanj predictingbindingsitesfromunboundversusboundproteinstructures
AT orbanzacharyj predictingbindingsitesfromunboundversusboundproteinstructures
AT carlsonheathera predictingbindingsitesfromunboundversusboundproteinstructures