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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Proteins, structure, function, and bioinformatics structure, function, and bioinformatics, 2013-12, Vol.81 (12), p.2192-2200
Hauptverfasser: Pallara, Chiara, Jiménez-García, Brian, Pérez-Cano, Laura, Romero-Durana, Miguel, Solernou, Albert, Grosdidier, Solène, Pons, Carles, Moal, Iain H., Fernandez-Recio, Juan
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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