Literature DB >> 34368994

Assessing the binding properties of CASP14 targets and models.

Megan Egbert1, Usman Ghani1, Ryota Ashizawa2,3, Sergei Kotelnikov2,3, Thu Nguyen3, Israel Desta1, Nasser Hashemi4, Dzmitry Padhorny2, Dima Kozakov2,3, Sandor Vajda1,5.   

Abstract

An important question is how well the models submitted to CASP retain the properties of target structures. We investigate several properties related to binding. First we explore the binding of small molecules as probes, and count the number of interactions between each residue and such probes, resulting in a binding fingerprint. The similarity between two fingerprints, one for the X-ray structure and the other for a model, is determined by calculating their correlation coefficient. The fingerprint similarity weakly correlates with global measures of accuracy, and GDT_TS higher than 80 is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the conservation of surface binding properties. The advantage of this approach is that it can be carried out without information on potential ligands and their binding sites. The latter information was available for a few targets, and we explored whether the CASP14 models can be used to predict binding sites and to dock small ligands. Finally, we tested the ability of models to reproduce protein-protein interactions by docking both the X-ray structures and the models to their interaction partners in complexes. The analysis showed that in CASP14 the quality of individual domain models is approaching that offered by X-ray crystallography, and hence such models can be successfully used for the identification of binding and regulatory sites, as well as for assembling obligatory protein-protein complexes. Success of ligand docking, however, often depends on fine details of the binding interface, and thus may require accounting for conformational changes by simulation methods.
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  binding hot spots; ligand docking; protein binding site; protein mapping; protein-protein interaction; quality measures; structure prediction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34368994      PMCID: PMC8616776          DOI: 10.1002/prot.26209

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


  41 in total

Review 1.  Homology modeling in drug discovery: Overview, current applications, and future perspectives.

Authors:  Muhammed Tilahun Muhammed; Esin Aki-Yalcin
Journal:  Chem Biol Drug Des       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 2.817

2.  The ClusPro web server for protein-protein docking.

Authors:  Dima Kozakov; David R Hall; Bing Xia; Kathryn A Porter; Dzmitry Padhorny; Christine Yueh; Dmitri Beglov; Sandor Vajda
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 13.491

3.  CASP9 results compared to those of previous CASP experiments.

Authors:  Andriy Kryshtafovych; Krzysztof Fidelis; John Moult
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2011-10-14

4.  AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility.

Authors:  Garrett M Morris; Ruth Huey; William Lindstrom; Michel F Sanner; Richard K Belew; David S Goodsell; Arthur J Olson
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.376

5.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-Round XIII.

Authors:  Andriy Kryshtafovych; Torsten Schwede; Maya Topf; Krzysztof Fidelis; John Moult
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2019-10-23

6.  Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox.

Authors:  Noel M O'Boyle; Michael Banck; Craig A James; Chris Morley; Tim Vandermeersch; Geoffrey R Hutchison
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 5.514

7.  DockQ: A Quality Measure for Protein-Protein Docking Models.

Authors:  Sankar Basu; Björn Wallner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Biological and functional relevance of CASP predictions.

Authors:  Tianyun Liu; Shirbi Ish-Shalom; Wen Torng; Aleix Lafita; Christian Bock; Matthew Mort; David N Cooper; Spencer Bliven; Guido Capitani; Sean D Mooney; Russ B Altman
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2017-10-17

9.  DockRMSD: an open-source tool for atom mapping and RMSD calculation of symmetric molecules through graph isomorphism.

Authors:  Eric W Bell; Yang Zhang
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 5.514

10.  How proteins bind macrocycles.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Villar; Dmitri Beglov; Spandan Chennamadhavuni; John A Porco; Dima Kozakov; Sandor Vajda; Adrian Whitty
Journal:  Nat Chem Biol       Date:  2014-07-20       Impact factor: 15.040

View more
  3 in total

1.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-Round XIV.

Authors:  Andriy Kryshtafovych; Torsten Schwede; Maya Topf; Krzysztof Fidelis; John Moult
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2021-10-07

2.  Elucidation of protein function using computational docking and hotspot analysis by ClusPro and FTMap.

Authors:  George Jones; Akhil Jindal; Usman Ghani; Sergei Kotelnikov; Megan Egbert; Nasser Hashemi; Sandor Vajda; Dzmitry Padhorny; Dima Kozakov
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 5.699

3.  Structure-conditioned amino-acid couplings: How contact geometry affects pairwise sequence preferences.

Authors:  Jack Holland; Gevorg Grigoryan
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 6.725

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.