Literature DB >> 31994759

How to choose templates for modeling of protein complexes: Insights from benchmarking template-based docking.

Devlina Chakravarty1, G W McElfresh1, Petras J Kundrotas1, Ilya A Vakser1,2.   

Abstract

Comparative docking is based on experimentally determined structures of protein-protein complexes (templates), following the paradigm that proteins with similar sequences and/or structures form similar complexes. Modeling utilizing structure similarity of target monomers to template complexes significantly expands structural coverage of the interactome. Template-based docking by structure alignment can be performed for the entire structures or by aligning targets to the bound interfaces of the experimentally determined complexes. Systematic benchmarking of docking protocols based on full and interface structure alignment showed that both protocols perform similarly, with top 1 docking success rate 26%. However, in terms of the models' quality, the interface-based docking performed marginally better. The interface-based docking is preferable when one would suspect a significant conformational change in the full protein structure upon binding, for example, a rearrangement of the domains in multidomain proteins. Importantly, if the same structure is selected as the top template by both full and interface alignment, the docking success rate increases 2-fold for both top 1 and top 10 predictions. Matching structural annotations of the target and template proteins for template detection, as a computationally less expensive alternative to structural alignment, did not improve the docking performance. Sophisticated remote sequence homology detection added templates to the pool of those identified by structure-based alignment, suggesting that for practical docking, the combination of the structure alignment protocols and the remote sequence homology detection may be useful in order to avoid potential flaws in generation of the structural templates library.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  protein recognition; sequence homology; structure prediction; structure similarity; template detection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31994759      PMCID: PMC7375009          DOI: 10.1002/prot.25875

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proteins        ISSN: 0887-3585


  54 in total

1.  Structural view of the Ran-Importin beta interaction at 2.3 A resolution.

Authors:  I R Vetter; A Arndt; U Kutay; D Görlich; A Wittinghofer
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1999-05-28       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  HHblits: lightning-fast iterative protein sequence searching by HMM-HMM alignment.

Authors:  Michael Remmert; Andreas Biegert; Andreas Hauser; Johannes Söding
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2011-12-25       Impact factor: 28.547

3.  Templates are available to model nearly all complexes of structurally characterized proteins.

Authors:  Petras J Kundrotas; Zhengwei Zhu; Joël Janin; Ilya A Vakser
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Structural basis of family-wide Rab GTPase recognition by rabenosyn-5.

Authors:  Sudharshan Eathiraj; Xiaojing Pan; Christopher Ritacco; David G Lambright
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-07-21       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  The relationship between sequence and interaction divergence in proteins.

Authors:  Patrick Aloy; Hugo Ceulemans; Alexander Stark; Robert B Russell
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2003-10-03       Impact factor: 5.469

6.  Structural templates for modeling homodimers.

Authors:  Petras J Kundrotas; Ilya A Vakser; Joël Janin
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 6.725

7.  Structural basis for nuclear import complex dissociation by RanGTP.

Authors:  Soo Jae Lee; Yoshiyuki Matsuura; Sai Man Liu; Murray Stewart
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Dimeric structure of the coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor D1 domain at 1.7 A resolution.

Authors:  M J van Raaij; E Chouin; H van der Zandt; J M Bergelson; S Cusack
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 5.006

9.  Manual classification strategies in the ECOD database.

Authors:  Hua Cheng; Yuxing Liao; R Dustin Schaeffer; Nick V Grishin
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2015-05-08

10.  Structural and functional analyses of PAS domain interactions of the clock proteins Drosophila PERIOD and mouse PERIOD2.

Authors:  Sven Hennig; Holger M Strauss; Katja Vanselow; Ozkan Yildiz; Sabrina Schulze; Julia Arens; Achim Kramer; Eva Wolf
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Challenges in protein docking.

Authors:  Ilya A Vakser
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 6.809

2.  Structural motifs in protein cores and at protein-protein interfaces are different.

Authors:  Anna Hadarovich; Devlina Chakravarty; Alexander V Tuzikov; Nir Ben-Tal; Petras J Kundrotas; Ilya A Vakser
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 6.993

3.  Structural Insights into the Interaction of Filovirus Glycoproteins with the Endosomal Receptor Niemann-Pick C1: A Computational Study.

Authors:  Manabu Igarashi; Takatsugu Hirokawa; Yoshihiro Takadate; Ayato Takada
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 5.048

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.