Nicholas A Marze1, Shourya S Roy Burman1, William Sheffler2,3, Jeffrey J Gray1,4,5,6. 1. Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Institute for Protein Design, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Program in Molecular Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Institute for NanoBioTechnology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
Motivation: Binding-induced conformational changes challenge current computational docking algorithms by exponentially increasing the conformational space to be explored. To restrict this search to relevant space, some computational docking algorithms exploit the inherent flexibility of the protein monomers to simulate conformational selection from pre-generated ensembles. As the ensemble size expands with increased flexibility, these methods struggle with efficiency and high false positive rates. Results: Here, we develop and benchmark RosettaDock 4.0, which efficiently samples large conformational ensembles of flexible proteins and docks them using a novel, six-dimensional, coarse-grained score function. A strong discriminative ability allows an eight-fold higher enrichment of near-native candidate structures in the coarse-grained phase compared to RosettaDock 3.2. It adaptively samples 100 conformations each of the ligand and the receptor backbone while increasing computational time by only 20-80%. In local docking of a benchmark set of 88 proteins of varying degrees of flexibility, the expected success rate (defined as cases with ≥50% chance of achieving 3 near-native structures in the 5 top-ranked ones) for blind predictions after resampling is 77% for rigid complexes, 49% for moderately flexible complexes and 31% for highly flexible complexes. These success rates on flexible complexes are a substantial step forward from all existing methods. Additionally, for highly flexible proteins, we demonstrate that when a suitable conformer generation method exists, the method successfully docks the complex. Availability and implementation: As a part of the Rosetta software suite, RosettaDock 4.0 is available at https://www.rosettacommons.org to all non-commercial users for free and to commercial users for a fee. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Motivation: Binding-induced conformational changes challenge current computational docking algorithms by exponentially increasing the conformational space to be explored. To restrict this search to relevant space, some computational docking algorithms exploit the inherent flexibility of the protein monomers to simulate conformational selection from pre-generated ensembles. As the ensemble size expands with increased flexibility, these methods struggle with efficiency and high false positive rates. Results: Here, we develop and benchmark RosettaDock 4.0, which efficiently samples large conformational ensembles of flexible proteins and docks them using a novel, six-dimensional, coarse-grained score function. A strong discriminative ability allows an eight-fold higher enrichment of near-native candidate structures in the coarse-grained phase compared to RosettaDock 3.2. It adaptively samples 100 conformations each of the ligand and the receptor backbone while increasing computational time by only 20-80%. In local docking of a benchmark set of 88 proteins of varying degrees of flexibility, the expected success rate (defined as cases with ≥50% chance of achieving 3 near-native structures in the 5 top-ranked ones) for blind predictions after resampling is 77% for rigid complexes, 49% for moderately flexible complexes and 31% for highly flexible complexes. These success rates on flexible complexes are a substantial step forward from all existing methods. Additionally, for highly flexible proteins, we demonstrate that when a suitable conformer generation method exists, the method successfully docks the complex. Availability and implementation: As a part of the Rosetta software suite, RosettaDock 4.0 is available at https://www.rosettacommons.org to all non-commercial users for free and to commercial users for a fee. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Authors: H M Berman; J Westbrook; Z Feng; G Gilliland; T N Bhat; H Weissig; I N Shindyalov; P E Bourne Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2000-01-01 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Jeffrey J Gray; Stewart Moughon; Chu Wang; Ora Schueler-Furman; Brian Kuhlman; Carol A Rohl; David Baker Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Julia Koehler Leman; Brian D Weitzner; Steven M Lewis; Jared Adolf-Bryfogle; Nawsad Alam; Rebecca F Alford; Melanie Aprahamian; David Baker; Kyle A Barlow; Patrick Barth; Benjamin Basanta; Brian J Bender; Kristin Blacklock; Jaume Bonet; Scott E Boyken; Phil Bradley; Chris Bystroff; Patrick Conway; Seth Cooper; Bruno E Correia; Brian Coventry; Rhiju Das; René M De Jong; Frank DiMaio; Lorna Dsilva; Roland Dunbrack; Alexander S Ford; Brandon Frenz; Darwin Y Fu; Caleb Geniesse; Lukasz Goldschmidt; Ragul Gowthaman; Jeffrey J Gray; Dominik Gront; Sharon Guffy; Scott Horowitz; Po-Ssu Huang; Thomas Huber; Tim M Jacobs; Jeliazko R Jeliazkov; David K Johnson; Kalli Kappel; John Karanicolas; Hamed Khakzad; Karen R Khar; Sagar D Khare; Firas Khatib; Alisa Khramushin; Indigo C King; Robert Kleffner; Brian Koepnick; Tanja Kortemme; Georg Kuenze; Brian Kuhlman; Daisuke Kuroda; Jason W Labonte; Jason K Lai; Gideon Lapidoth; Andrew Leaver-Fay; Steffen Lindert; Thomas Linsky; Nir London; Joseph H Lubin; Sergey Lyskov; Jack Maguire; Lars Malmström; Enrique Marcos; Orly Marcu; Nicholas A Marze; Jens Meiler; Rocco Moretti; Vikram Khipple Mulligan; Santrupti Nerli; Christoffer Norn; Shane Ó'Conchúir; Noah Ollikainen; Sergey Ovchinnikov; Michael S Pacella; Xingjie Pan; Hahnbeom Park; Ryan E Pavlovicz; Manasi Pethe; Brian G Pierce; Kala Bharath Pilla; Barak Raveh; P Douglas Renfrew; Shourya S Roy Burman; Aliza Rubenstein; Marion F Sauer; Andreas Scheck; William Schief; Ora Schueler-Furman; Yuval Sedan; Alexander M Sevy; Nikolaos G Sgourakis; Lei Shi; Justin B Siegel; Daniel-Adriano Silva; Shannon Smith; Yifan Song; Amelie Stein; Maria Szegedy; Frank D Teets; Summer B Thyme; Ray Yu-Ruei Wang; Andrew Watkins; Lior Zimmerman; Richard Bonneau Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 28.547