Expanding the frontiers of protein-protein modeling: From docking and scoring to binding affinity predictions and other challenges
ABSTRACT In addition to protein–protein docking, this CAPRI edition included new challenges, like protein–water and protein–sugar interactions, or the prediction of binding affinities and ΔΔG changes upon mutation. Regarding the standard protein–protein docking cases, our approach, mostly based on t...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Proteins, structure, function, and bioinformatics structure, function, and bioinformatics, 2013-12, Vol.81 (12), p.2192-2200 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2200 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 2192 |
container_title | Proteins, structure, function, and bioinformatics |
container_volume | 81 |
creator | Pallara, Chiara Jiménez-García, Brian Pérez-Cano, Laura Romero-Durana, Miguel Solernou, Albert Grosdidier, Solène Pons, Carles Moal, Iain H. Fernandez-Recio, Juan |
description | ABSTRACT
In addition to protein–protein docking, this CAPRI edition included new challenges, like protein–water and protein–sugar interactions, or the prediction of binding affinities and ΔΔG changes upon mutation. Regarding the standard protein–protein docking cases, our approach, mostly based on the pyDock scheme, submitted correct models as predictors and as scorers for 67% and 57% of the evaluated targets, respectively. In this edition, available information on known interface residues hardly made any difference for our predictions. In one of the targets, the inclusion of available experimental small‐angle X‐ray scattering (SAXS) data using our pyDockSAXS approach slightly improved the predictions. In addition to the standard protein–protein docking assessment, new challenges were proposed. One of the new problems was predicting the position of the interface water molecules, for which we submitted models with 20% and 43% of the water‐mediated native contacts predicted as predictors and scorers, respectively. Another new problem was the prediction of protein–carbohydrate binding, where our submitted model was very close to being acceptable. A set of targets were related to the prediction of binding affinities, in which our pyDock scheme was able to discriminate between natural and designed complexes with area under the curve = 83%. It was also proposed to estimate the effect of point mutations on binding affinity. Our approach, based on machine learning methods, showed high rates of correctly classified mutations for all cases. The overall results were highly rewarding, and show that the field is ready to move forward and face new interesting challenges in interactomics. Proteins 2013; 81:2192–2200. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/prot.24387 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1468362048</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1468362048</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4287-e9c71b0f2146f21ab7d9f383a6551cc63e8ee92efcd2fabfe12c30a64e966d8f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1u1DAURi0EokNhwwMgS2wQUop_EsdhV5W2gEYtoCK6sxznunWb2IOdEZ0tT44zmXbBArHx3ZzvWPd-CL2k5IASwt6tYhgPWMll_QgtKGnqglBePkYLImVd8EpWe-hZSjeEENFw8RTtMd7wUopqgX4f362075y_wuM1YBuDHx3EhIPFkxecL3YTD6GDPpPv8UkMA-6CuZ1yOY6TCXHrCLh1s05b67wbN1kDnTOjCz5t2ZA_ithc674HfwXpOXpidZ_gxW7uo-8nxxdHH4vl-emno8NlYUqW94DG1LQlltFS5Ee3dddYLrkWVUWNERwkQMPAmo5Z3VqgzHCiRQmNEJ20fB-9mb15n59rSKMaXDLQ99pDWCeVvZILRkr5PyijTb59ldHXf6E3YR19XmSiqKC1ICRTb2fKxJBSBKtW0Q06bhQlaipRTUdW2xIz_GqnXLcDdA_ofWsZoDPwy_Ww-YdKffl2fnEvLeaMSyPcPWR0vFWi5nWlfpydKna5_HrGPl-qD_wPTJC4yA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1461617600</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Expanding the frontiers of protein-protein modeling: From docking and scoring to binding affinity predictions and other challenges</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Pallara, Chiara ; Jiménez-García, Brian ; Pérez-Cano, Laura ; Romero-Durana, Miguel ; Solernou, Albert ; Grosdidier, Solène ; Pons, Carles ; Moal, Iain H. ; Fernandez-Recio, Juan</creator><creatorcontrib>Pallara, Chiara ; Jiménez-García, Brian ; Pérez-Cano, Laura ; Romero-Durana, Miguel ; Solernou, Albert ; Grosdidier, Solène ; Pons, Carles ; Moal, Iain H. ; Fernandez-Recio, Juan</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT
In addition to protein–protein docking, this CAPRI edition included new challenges, like protein–water and protein–sugar interactions, or the prediction of binding affinities and ΔΔG changes upon mutation. Regarding the standard protein–protein docking cases, our approach, mostly based on the pyDock scheme, submitted correct models as predictors and as scorers for 67% and 57% of the evaluated targets, respectively. In this edition, available information on known interface residues hardly made any difference for our predictions. In one of the targets, the inclusion of available experimental small‐angle X‐ray scattering (SAXS) data using our pyDockSAXS approach slightly improved the predictions. In addition to the standard protein–protein docking assessment, new challenges were proposed. One of the new problems was predicting the position of the interface water molecules, for which we submitted models with 20% and 43% of the water‐mediated native contacts predicted as predictors and scorers, respectively. Another new problem was the prediction of protein–carbohydrate binding, where our submitted model was very close to being acceptable. A set of targets were related to the prediction of binding affinities, in which our pyDock scheme was able to discriminate between natural and designed complexes with area under the curve = 83%. It was also proposed to estimate the effect of point mutations on binding affinity. Our approach, based on machine learning methods, showed high rates of correctly classified mutations for all cases. The overall results were highly rewarding, and show that the field is ready to move forward and face new interesting challenges in interactomics. Proteins 2013; 81:2192–2200. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0887-3585</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0134</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/prot.24387</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23934865</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Bioinformatics ; CAPRI ; Carbohydrates - chemistry ; complex structure ; Computational Biology ; Molecular Docking Simulation ; Mutation ; Protein Binding ; Protein Conformation ; protein-carbohydrate interactions ; protein-protein docking ; Proteins - chemistry ; pyDock ; Scattering, Small Angle ; Software ; Water - chemistry ; X-Ray Diffraction</subject><ispartof>Proteins, structure, function, and bioinformatics, 2013-12, Vol.81 (12), p.2192-2200</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4287-e9c71b0f2146f21ab7d9f383a6551cc63e8ee92efcd2fabfe12c30a64e966d8f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4287-e9c71b0f2146f21ab7d9f383a6551cc63e8ee92efcd2fabfe12c30a64e966d8f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fprot.24387$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fprot.24387$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23934865$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pallara, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiménez-García, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Cano, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Romero-Durana, Miguel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solernou, Albert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grosdidier, Solène</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pons, Carles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moal, Iain H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernandez-Recio, Juan</creatorcontrib><title>Expanding the frontiers of protein-protein modeling: From docking and scoring to binding affinity predictions and other challenges</title><title>Proteins, structure, function, and bioinformatics</title><addtitle>Proteins</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT
In addition to protein–protein docking, this CAPRI edition included new challenges, like protein–water and protein–sugar interactions, or the prediction of binding affinities and ΔΔG changes upon mutation. Regarding the standard protein–protein docking cases, our approach, mostly based on the pyDock scheme, submitted correct models as predictors and as scorers for 67% and 57% of the evaluated targets, respectively. In this edition, available information on known interface residues hardly made any difference for our predictions. In one of the targets, the inclusion of available experimental small‐angle X‐ray scattering (SAXS) data using our pyDockSAXS approach slightly improved the predictions. In addition to the standard protein–protein docking assessment, new challenges were proposed. One of the new problems was predicting the position of the interface water molecules, for which we submitted models with 20% and 43% of the water‐mediated native contacts predicted as predictors and scorers, respectively. Another new problem was the prediction of protein–carbohydrate binding, where our submitted model was very close to being acceptable. A set of targets were related to the prediction of binding affinities, in which our pyDock scheme was able to discriminate between natural and designed complexes with area under the curve = 83%. It was also proposed to estimate the effect of point mutations on binding affinity. Our approach, based on machine learning methods, showed high rates of correctly classified mutations for all cases. The overall results were highly rewarding, and show that the field is ready to move forward and face new interesting challenges in interactomics. Proteins 2013; 81:2192–2200. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><subject>Bioinformatics</subject><subject>CAPRI</subject><subject>Carbohydrates - chemistry</subject><subject>complex structure</subject><subject>Computational Biology</subject><subject>Molecular Docking Simulation</subject><subject>Mutation</subject><subject>Protein Binding</subject><subject>Protein Conformation</subject><subject>protein-carbohydrate interactions</subject><subject>protein-protein docking</subject><subject>Proteins - chemistry</subject><subject>pyDock</subject><subject>Scattering, Small Angle</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Water - chemistry</subject><subject>X-Ray Diffraction</subject><issn>0887-3585</issn><issn>1097-0134</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1u1DAURi0EokNhwwMgS2wQUop_EsdhV5W2gEYtoCK6sxznunWb2IOdEZ0tT44zmXbBArHx3ZzvWPd-CL2k5IASwt6tYhgPWMll_QgtKGnqglBePkYLImVd8EpWe-hZSjeEENFw8RTtMd7wUopqgX4f362075y_wuM1YBuDHx3EhIPFkxecL3YTD6GDPpPv8UkMA-6CuZ1yOY6TCXHrCLh1s05b67wbN1kDnTOjCz5t2ZA_ithc674HfwXpOXpidZ_gxW7uo-8nxxdHH4vl-emno8NlYUqW94DG1LQlltFS5Ee3dddYLrkWVUWNERwkQMPAmo5Z3VqgzHCiRQmNEJ20fB-9mb15n59rSKMaXDLQ99pDWCeVvZILRkr5PyijTb59ldHXf6E3YR19XmSiqKC1ICRTb2fKxJBSBKtW0Q06bhQlaipRTUdW2xIz_GqnXLcDdA_ofWsZoDPwy_Ww-YdKffl2fnEvLeaMSyPcPWR0vFWi5nWlfpydKna5_HrGPl-qD_wPTJC4yA</recordid><startdate>201312</startdate><enddate>201312</enddate><creator>Pallara, Chiara</creator><creator>Jiménez-García, Brian</creator><creator>Pérez-Cano, Laura</creator><creator>Romero-Durana, Miguel</creator><creator>Solernou, Albert</creator><creator>Grosdidier, Solène</creator><creator>Pons, Carles</creator><creator>Moal, Iain H.</creator><creator>Fernandez-Recio, Juan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201312</creationdate><title>Expanding the frontiers of protein-protein modeling: From docking and scoring to binding affinity predictions and other challenges</title><author>Pallara, Chiara ; Jiménez-García, Brian ; Pérez-Cano, Laura ; Romero-Durana, Miguel ; Solernou, Albert ; Grosdidier, Solène ; Pons, Carles ; Moal, Iain H. ; Fernandez-Recio, Juan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4287-e9c71b0f2146f21ab7d9f383a6551cc63e8ee92efcd2fabfe12c30a64e966d8f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Bioinformatics</topic><topic>CAPRI</topic><topic>Carbohydrates - chemistry</topic><topic>complex structure</topic><topic>Computational Biology</topic><topic>Molecular Docking Simulation</topic><topic>Mutation</topic><topic>Protein Binding</topic><topic>Protein Conformation</topic><topic>protein-carbohydrate interactions</topic><topic>protein-protein docking</topic><topic>Proteins - chemistry</topic><topic>pyDock</topic><topic>Scattering, Small Angle</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Water - chemistry</topic><topic>X-Ray Diffraction</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pallara, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiménez-García, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Cano, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Romero-Durana, Miguel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solernou, Albert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grosdidier, Solène</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pons, Carles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moal, Iain H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernandez-Recio, Juan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Proteins, structure, function, and bioinformatics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pallara, Chiara</au><au>Jiménez-García, Brian</au><au>Pérez-Cano, Laura</au><au>Romero-Durana, Miguel</au><au>Solernou, Albert</au><au>Grosdidier, Solène</au><au>Pons, Carles</au><au>Moal, Iain H.</au><au>Fernandez-Recio, Juan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Expanding the frontiers of protein-protein modeling: From docking and scoring to binding affinity predictions and other challenges</atitle><jtitle>Proteins, structure, function, and bioinformatics</jtitle><addtitle>Proteins</addtitle><date>2013-12</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>81</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2192</spage><epage>2200</epage><pages>2192-2200</pages><issn>0887-3585</issn><eissn>1097-0134</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT
In addition to protein–protein docking, this CAPRI edition included new challenges, like protein–water and protein–sugar interactions, or the prediction of binding affinities and ΔΔG changes upon mutation. Regarding the standard protein–protein docking cases, our approach, mostly based on the pyDock scheme, submitted correct models as predictors and as scorers for 67% and 57% of the evaluated targets, respectively. In this edition, available information on known interface residues hardly made any difference for our predictions. In one of the targets, the inclusion of available experimental small‐angle X‐ray scattering (SAXS) data using our pyDockSAXS approach slightly improved the predictions. In addition to the standard protein–protein docking assessment, new challenges were proposed. One of the new problems was predicting the position of the interface water molecules, for which we submitted models with 20% and 43% of the water‐mediated native contacts predicted as predictors and scorers, respectively. Another new problem was the prediction of protein–carbohydrate binding, where our submitted model was very close to being acceptable. A set of targets were related to the prediction of binding affinities, in which our pyDock scheme was able to discriminate between natural and designed complexes with area under the curve = 83%. It was also proposed to estimate the effect of point mutations on binding affinity. Our approach, based on machine learning methods, showed high rates of correctly classified mutations for all cases. The overall results were highly rewarding, and show that the field is ready to move forward and face new interesting challenges in interactomics. Proteins 2013; 81:2192–2200. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>23934865</pmid><doi>10.1002/prot.24387</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0887-3585 |
ispartof | Proteins, structure, function, and bioinformatics, 2013-12, Vol.81 (12), p.2192-2200 |
issn | 0887-3585 1097-0134 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1468362048 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Journals |
subjects | Bioinformatics CAPRI Carbohydrates - chemistry complex structure Computational Biology Molecular Docking Simulation Mutation Protein Binding Protein Conformation protein-carbohydrate interactions protein-protein docking Proteins - chemistry pyDock Scattering, Small Angle Software Water - chemistry X-Ray Diffraction |
title | Expanding the frontiers of protein-protein modeling: From docking and scoring to binding affinity predictions and other challenges |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T13%3A46%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Expanding%20the%20frontiers%20of%20protein-protein%20modeling:%20From%20docking%20and%20scoring%20to%20binding%20affinity%20predictions%20and%20other%20challenges&rft.jtitle=Proteins,%20structure,%20function,%20and%20bioinformatics&rft.au=Pallara,%20Chiara&rft.date=2013-12&rft.volume=81&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2192&rft.epage=2200&rft.pages=2192-2200&rft.issn=0887-3585&rft.eissn=1097-0134&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/prot.24387&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1468362048%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1461617600&rft_id=info:pmid/23934865&rfr_iscdi=true |