Literature DB >> 26846888

Cryo-EM Data Are Superior to Contact and Interface Information in Integrative Modeling.

Sjoerd J de Vries1, Isaure Chauvot de Beauchêne2, Christina E M Schindler3, Martin Zacharias3.   

Abstract

Protein-protein interactions carry out a large variety of essential cellular processes. Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) is a powerful technique for the modeling of protein-protein interactions at a wide range of resolutions, and recent developments have caused a revolution in the field. At low resolution, cryo-EM maps can drive integrative modeling of the interaction, assembling existing structures into the map. Other experimental techniques can provide information on the interface or on the contacts between the monomers in the complex. This inevitably raises the question regarding which type of data is best suited to drive integrative modeling approaches. Systematic comparison of the prediction accuracy and specificity of the different integrative modeling paradigms is unavailable to date. Here, we compare EM-driven, interface-driven, and contact-driven integrative modeling paradigms. Models were generated for the protein docking benchmark using the ATTRACT docking engine and evaluated using the CAPRI two-star criterion. At 20 Å resolution, EM-driven modeling achieved a success rate of 100%, outperforming the other paradigms even with perfect interface and contact information. Therefore, even very low resolution cryo-EM data is superior in predicting heterodimeric and heterotrimeric protein assemblies. Our study demonstrates that a force field is not necessary, cryo-EM data alone is sufficient to accurately guide the monomers into place. The resulting rigid models successfully identify regions of conformational change, opening up perspectives for targeted flexible remodeling.
Copyright © 2016 Biophysical Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26846888      PMCID: PMC4776041          DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2015.12.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biophys J        ISSN: 0006-3495            Impact factor:   4.033


  80 in total

1.  Situs: A package for docking crystal structures into low-resolution maps from electron microscopy.

Authors:  W Wriggers; R A Milligan; J A McCammon
Journal:  J Struct Biol       Date:  1999 Apr-May       Impact factor: 2.867

2.  FATCAT: a web server for flexible structure comparison and structure similarity searching.

Authors:  Yuzhen Ye; Adam Godzik
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  A method for integrative structure determination of protein-protein complexes.

Authors:  Dina Schneidman-Duhovny; Andrea Rossi; Agustin Avila-Sakar; Seung Joong Kim; Javier Velázquez-Muriel; Pavel Strop; Hong Liang; Kristin A Krukenberg; Maofu Liao; Ho Min Kim; Solmaz Sobhanifar; Volker Dötsch; Arvind Rajpal; Jaume Pons; David A Agard; Yifan Cheng; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 6.937

4.  On the usefulness of ion-mobility mass spectrometry and SAXS data in scoring docking decoys.

Authors:  Ezgi Karaca; Alexandre M J J Bonvin
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr       Date:  2013-04-19

5.  Probabilistic models for capturing more physicochemical properties on protein-protein interface.

Authors:  Fei Guo; Shuai Cheng Li; Pufeng Du; Lusheng Wang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  Protein-protein docking with dynamic residue protonation states.

Authors:  Krishna Praneeth Kilambi; Kavan Reddy; Jeffrey J Gray
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  ATTRACT-EM: a new method for the computational assembly of large molecular machines using cryo-EM maps.

Authors:  Sjoerd J de Vries; Martin Zacharias
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Protein-protein docking with F(2)Dock 2.0 and GB-rerank.

Authors:  Rezaul Chowdhury; Muhibur Rasheed; Donald Keidel; Maysam Moussalem; Arthur Olson; Michel Sanner; Chandrajit Bajaj
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A unified conformational selection and induced fit approach to protein-peptide docking.

Authors:  Mikael Trellet; Adrien S J Melquiond; Alexandre M J J Bonvin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  VORFFIP-driven dock: V-D2OCK, a fast and accurate protein docking strategy.

Authors:  Joan Segura; Manuel Alejandro Marín-López; Pamela F Jones; Baldo Oliva; Narcis Fernandez-Fuentes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Hybrid methods for combined experimental and computational determination of protein structure.

Authors:  Justin T Seffernick; Steffen Lindert
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2020-12-28       Impact factor: 3.488

2.  Protein-peptide docking using CABS-dock and contact information.

Authors:  Maciej Blaszczyk; Maciej Pawel Ciemny; Andrzej Kolinski; Mateusz Kurcinski; Sebastian Kmiecik
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 11.622

3.  The cryo-electron microscopy supramolecular structure of the bacterial stressosome unveils its mechanism of activation.

Authors:  Allison H Williams; Adam Redzej; Nathalie Rolhion; Tiago R D Costa; Aline Rifflet; Gabriel Waksman; Pascale Cossart
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  Predicting the structure of large protein complexes using AlphaFold and Monte Carlo tree search.

Authors:  Patrick Bryant; Gabriele Pozzati; Wensi Zhu; Aditi Shenoy; Petras Kundrotas; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 17.694

Review 5.  Computational reconstruction of atomistic protein structures from coarse-grained models.

Authors:  Aleksandra E Badaczewska-Dawid; Andrzej Kolinski; Sebastian Kmiecik
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 7.271

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.