Evaluating template-based and template-free protein-protein complex structure prediction
UMass Chan AffiliationsProgram in Bioinformatics and Integrative Biology
*Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs
Protein Interaction Mapping
Structural Homology, Protein
Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractWe compared the performance of template-free (docking) and template-based methods for the prediction of protein-protein complex structures. We found similar performance for a template-based method based on threading (COTH) and another template-based method based on structural alignment (PRISM). The template-based methods showed similar performance to a docking method (ZDOCK) when the latter was allowed one prediction for each complex, but when the same number of predictions was allowed for each method, the docking approach outperformed template-based approaches. We identified strengths and weaknesses in each method. Template-based approaches were better able to handle complexes that involved conformational changes upon binding. Furthermore, the threading-based and docking methods were better than the structural-alignment-based method for enzyme-inhibitor complex prediction. Finally, we show that the near-native (correct) predictions were generally not shared by the various approaches, suggesting that integrating their results could be the superior strategy.
SourceBrief Bioinform. 2014 Mar;15(2):169-76. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbt047. Epub 2013 Jul 1. Link to article on publisher's site
Permanent Link to this Itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/25921
Related ResourcesLink to Article in PubMed
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Protein-protein docking benchmark version 4.0Hwang, Howook; Vreven, Thom; Janin, Joel; Weng, Zhiping (2010-11-15)We updated our protein-protein docking benchmark to include complexes that became available since our previous release. As before, we only considered high-resolution complex structures that are nonredundant at the family-family pair level, for which the X-ray or NMR unbound structures of the constituent proteins are also available. Benchmark 4.0 adds 52 new complexes to the 124 cases of Benchmark 3.0, representing an increase of 42%. Thus, benchmark 4.0 provides 176 unbound-unbound cases that can be used for protein-protein docking method development and assessment. Seventeen of the newly added cases are enzyme-inhibitor complexes, and we found no new antigen-antibody complexes. Classifying the new cases according to expected difficulty for protein-protein docking algorithms gives 33 rigid body cases, 11 cases of medium difficulty, and 8 cases that are difficult. Benchmark 4.0 listings and processed structure files are publicly accessible at http://zlab.umassmed.edu/benchmark/.
Updates to the Integrated Protein-Protein Interaction Benchmarks: Docking Benchmark Version 5 and Affinity Benchmark Version 2Vreven, Thom; Moal, Iain H.; Vangone, Anna; Pierce, Brian G.; Kastritis, Panagiotis L.; Torchala, Mieczyslaw; Chaleil, Raphael; Jimenez-Garcia, Brian; Bates, Paul A.; Fernandez-Recio, Juan; et al. (2015-09-25)We present an updated and integrated version of our widely used protein-protein docking and binding affinity benchmarks. The benchmarks consist of non-redundant, high-quality structures of protein-protein complexes along with the unbound structures of their components. Fifty-five new complexes were added to the docking benchmark, 35 of which have experimentally measured binding affinities. These updated docking and affinity benchmarks now contain 230 and 179 entries, respectively. In particular, the number of antibody-antigen complexes has increased significantly, by 67% and 74% in the docking and affinity benchmarks, respectively. We tested previously developed docking and affinity prediction algorithms on the new cases. Considering only the top 10 docking predictions per benchmark case, a prediction accuracy of 38% is achieved on all 55 cases and up to 50% for the 32 rigid-body cases only. Predicted affinity scores are found to correlate with experimental binding energies up to r=0.52 overall and r=0.72 for the rigid complexes.
Angiomotins link F-actin architecture to Hippo pathway signalingMana-Capelli, Sebastian; Paramasivam, Murugan; Dutta, Shubham; McCollum, Dannel (2014-05-01)The Hippo pathway regulates the transcriptional coactivator YAP to control cell proliferation, organ size, and stem cell maintenance. Multiple factors, such as substrate stiffness, cell density, and G protein-coupled receptor signaling, regulate YAP through their effects on the F-actin cytoskeleton, although the mechanism is not known. Here we show that angiomotin proteins (AMOT130, AMOTL1, and AMOTL2) connect F-actin architecture to YAP regulation. First, we show that angiomotins are required to relocalize YAP to the cytoplasm in response to various manipulations that perturb the actin cytoskeleton. Second, angiomotins associate with F-actin through a conserved F-actin-binding domain, and mutants defective for F-actin binding show enhanced ability to retain YAP in the cytoplasm. Third, F-actin and YAP compete for binding to AMOT130, explaining how F-actin inhibits AMOT130-mediated cytoplasmic retention of YAP. Furthermore, we find that LATS can synergize with F-actin perturbations by phosphorylating free AMOT130 to keep it from associating with F-actin. Together these results uncover a mechanism for how F-actin levels modulate YAP localization, allowing cells to make developmental and proliferative decisions based on diverse inputs that regulate actin architecture.