Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 6. Capability to predict protein-protein binding free energies and re-rank binding poses generated by protein-protein docking

被引:391
作者
Chen, Fu [1 ]
Liu, Hui [1 ]
Sun, Huiyong [1 ]
Pan, Peichen [1 ]
Li, Youyong [3 ]
Li, Dan [1 ]
Hou, Tingjun [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Zhejiang Univ, Coll Pharmaceut Sci, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[2] Zhejiang Univ, State Key Lab CAD&CG, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[3] Soochow Univ, Inst Funct Nano Soft Mat FUNSOM, Suzhou 215123, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
REFINED CRYSTAL-STRUCTURE; PANCREATIC ALPHA-AMYLASE; 2.5 ANGSTROM RESOLUTION; BOLTZMANN SURFACE-AREA; STRUCTURAL BASIS; FAB FRAGMENT; COMPLEX-FORMATION; DRUGGABILITY PREDICTION; CONFORMATIONAL-CHANGES; COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1039/c6cp03670h
中图分类号
O64 [物理化学(理论化学)、化学物理学];
学科分类号
070304 ; 081704 ;
摘要
Understanding protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is quite important to elucidate crucial biological processes and even design compounds that interfere with PPIs with pharmaceutical significance. Protein-protein docking can afford the atomic structural details of protein-protein complexes, but the accurate prediction of the three-dimensional structures for protein-protein systems is still notoriously difficult due in part to the lack of an ideal scoring function for protein-protein docking. Compared with most scoring functions used in protein-protein docking, the Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) methodologies are more theoretically rigorous, but their overall performance for the predictions of binding affinities and binding poses for protein-protein systems has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we first evaluated the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA to predict the binding affinities for 46 protein-protein complexes. On the whole, different force fields, solvation models, and interior dielectric constants have obvious impacts on the prediction accuracy of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA. The MM/GBSA calculations based on the ff02 force field, the GB model developed by Onufriev et al. and a low interior dielectric constant (epsilon(in) = 1) yield the best correlation between the predicted binding affinities and the experimental data (r(p) = -0.647), which is better than MM/PBSA (r(p) = -0.523) and a number of empirical scoring functions used in protein-protein docking (r(p) = -0.141 to -0.529). Then, we examined the capability of MM/GBSA to identify the possible near-native binding structures from the decoys generated by ZDOCK for 43 protein-protein systems. The results illustrate that the MM/GBSA rescoring has better capability to distinguish the correct binding structures from the decoys than the ZDOCK scoring. Besides, the optimal interior dielectric constant of MM/GBSA for re-ranking docking poses may be determined by analyzing the characteristics of protein-protein binding interfaces. Considering the relatively high prediction accuracy and low computational cost, MM/GBSA may be a good choice for predicting the binding affinities and identifying correct binding structures for protein-protein systems.
引用
收藏
页码:22129 / 22139
页数:11
相关论文
共 134 条
[51]   On the binding affinity of macromolecular interactions: daring to ask why proteins interact [J].
Kastritis, Panagiotis L. ;
Bonvin, Alexandre M. J. J. .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, 2013, 10 (79)
[52]   Are Scoring Functions in Protein-Protein Docking Ready to Predict Interactomes? Clues from a Novel Binding Affinity Benchmark (vol 9, pg 2216, 2010) [J].
Kastritis, Panagiotis L. ;
Bonvin, Alexandre M. J. J. .
JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH, 2011, 10 (02) :921-922
[53]   Are Scoring Functions in Protein-Protein Docking Ready To Predict Interactomes? Clues from a Novel Binding Affinity Benchmark [J].
Kastritis, Panagiotis L. ;
Bonvin, Alexandre M. J. J. .
JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH, 2010, 9 (05) :2216-2225
[54]   The crystal structure of the DNase domain of colicin E7 in complex with its inhibitor Im7 protein [J].
Ko, TP ;
Liao, CC ;
Ku, WY ;
Chak, KF ;
Yuan, HS .
STRUCTURE WITH FOLDING & DESIGN, 1999, 7 (01) :91-102
[55]   A STRUCTURAL BASIS OF THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LEUCINE-RICH REPEATS AND PROTEIN LIGANDS [J].
KOBE, B ;
DEISENHOFER, J .
NATURE, 1995, 374 (6518) :183-186
[56]   DrugScorePPI Knowledge-Based Potentials Used as Scoring and Objective Function in Protein-Protein Docking [J].
Krueger, Dennis M. ;
Ignacio Garzon, Jose ;
Chacon, Pablo ;
Gohlke, Holger .
PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (02)
[57]   Structure of the Bet3-Tpc6B core of TRAPP:: Two Tpc6 paralogs form trimeric complexes with Bet3 and Mum2 [J].
Kuemmel, Daniel ;
Mueller, Juergen J. ;
Roskel, Yvette ;
Henke, Norbert ;
Heinemann, Udo .
JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, 2006, 361 (01) :22-32
[58]  
Lapouge K, 2000, MOL CELL, V6, P899, DOI 10.1016/S1097-2765(05)00091-2
[59]   Conformational changes in the tryptophan synthase from a hyperthermophile upon α2β2 complex formation:: Crystal structure of the complex [J].
Lee, SJ ;
Ogasahara, K ;
Ma, JC ;
Nishio, K ;
Ishida, M ;
Yamagata, Y ;
Tsukihara, T ;
Yutani, K .
BIOCHEMISTRY, 2005, 44 (34) :11417-11427
[60]   Structure of SARS coronavirus spike receptor-binding domain complexed with receptor [J].
Li, F ;
Li, WH ;
Farzan, M ;
Harrison, SC .
SCIENCE, 2005, 309 (5742) :1864-1868