Stephen R. Comeau

ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes

MOTIVATION Predicting protein interactions is one of the most challenging problems in functional genomics. Given two proteins known to interact, current docking methods evaluate billions of docked conformations by simple scoring functions, and in addition to near-native structures yield many false positives, i.e. structures with good surface complementarity but far from the native. RESULTS We have developed a fast algorithm for filtering docked conformations with good surface complementarity, and ranking them based on their clustering properties. The free energy filters select complexes with lowest desolvation and electrostatic energies. Clustering is then used to smooth the local minima and to select the ones with the broadest energy wells-a property associated with the free energy at the binding site. The robustness of the method was tested on sets of 2000 docked conformations generated for 48 pairs of interacting proteins. In 31 of these cases, the top 10 predictions include at least one near-native complex, with an average RMSD of 5 A from the native structure. The docking and discrimination method also provides good results for a number of complexes that were used as targets in the Critical Assessment of PRedictions of Interactions experiment. AVAILABILITY The fully automated docking and discrimination server ClusPro can be found at http://structure.bu.edu

ClusPro: A fully automated algorithm for protein-protein docking

ClusPro (http://nrc.bu.edu/cluster) represents the first fully automated, web-based program for the computational docking of protein structures. Users may upload the coordinate files of two protein structures through ClusPros web interface, or enter the PDB codes of the respective structures, which ClusPro will then download from the PDB server (http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/). The docking algorithms evaluate billions of putative complexes, retaining a preset number with favorable surface complementarities. A filtering method is then applied to this set of structures, selecting those with good electrostatic and desolvation free energies for further clustering. The program output is a short list of putative complexes ranked according to their clustering properties, which is automatically sent back to the user via email.

PIPER: an FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials.

The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) correlation approach to protein–protein docking can evaluate the energies of billions of docked conformations on a grid if the energy is described in the form of a correlation function. Here, this restriction is removed, and the approach is efficiently used with pairwise interaction potentials that substantially improve the docking results. The basic idea is approximating the interaction matrix by its eigenvectors corresponding to the few dominant eigenvalues, resulting in an energy expression written as the sum of a few correlation functions, and solving the problem by repeated FFT calculations. In addition to describing how the method is implemented, we present a novel class of structure‐based pairwise intermolecular potentials. The DARS (Decoys As the Reference State) potentials are extracted from structures of protein–protein complexes and use large sets of docked conformations as decoys to derive atom pair distributions in the reference state. The current version of the DARS potential works well for enzyme–inhibitor complexes. With the new FFT‐based program, DARS provides much better docking results than the earlier approaches, in many cases generating 50% more near‐native docked conformations. Although the potential is far from optimal for antibody–antigen pairs, the results are still slightly better than those given by an earlier FFT method. The docking program PIPER is freely available for noncommercial applications. Proteins 2006.

Achieving reliability and high accuracy in automated protein docking: Cluspro, PIPER, SDU, and stability analysis in CAPRI rounds 13–19

Our approach to protein—protein docking includes three main steps. First, we run PIPER, a rigid body docking program based on the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) correlation approach, extended to use pairwise interactions potentials. Second, the 1000 best energy conformations are clustered, and the 30 largest clusters are retained for refinement. Third, the stability of the clusters is analyzed by short Monte Carlo simulations, and the structures are refined by the medium‐range optimization method SDU. The first two steps of this approach are implemented in the ClusPro 2.0 protein–protein docking server. Despite being fully automated, the last step is computationally too expensive to be included in the server. When comparing the models obtained in CAPRI rounds 13–19 by ClusPro, by the refinement of the ClusPro predictions and by all predictor groups, we arrived at three conclusions. First, for the first time in the CAPRI history, our automated ClusPro server was able to compete with the best human predictor groups. Second, selecting the top ranked models, our current protocol reliably generates high‐quality structures of protein–protein complexes from the structures of separately crystallized proteins, even in the absence of biological information, provided that there is limited backbone conformational change. Third, despite occasional successes, homology modeling requires further improvement to achieve reliable docking results. Proteins 2010.

DARS (Decoys As the Reference State) Potentials for Protein-Protein Docking

Decoys As the Reference State (DARS) is a simple and natural approach to the construction of structure-based intermolecular potentials. The idea is generating a large set of docked conformations with good shape complementarity but without accounting for atom types, and using the frequency of interactions extracted from these decoys as the reference state. In principle, the resulting potential is ideal for finding near-native conformations among structures obtained by docking, and can be combined with other energy terms to be used directly in docking calculations. We investigated the performance of various DARS versions for docking enzyme-inhibitor, antigen-antibody, and other type of complexes. For enzyme-inhibitor pairs, DARS provides both excellent discrimination and docking results, even with very small decoy sets. For antigen-antibody complexes, DARS is slightly better than a number of interaction potentials tested, but results are worse than for enzyme-inhibitor complexes. With a few exceptions, the DARS docking results are also good for the other complexes, despite poor discrimination, and we show that the latter is not a correct test for docking accuracy. The analysis of interactions in antigen-antibody pairs reveals that, in constructing pairwise potentials for such complexes, one should account for the asymmetry of hydrophobic patches on the two sides of the interface. Similar asymmetry does occur in the few other complexes with poor DARS docking results.

ClusPro: Performance in CAPRI rounds 6–11 and the new server

ClusPro is the first fully automated, web‐based program for docking protein structures. Users may upload the coordinate files of two protein structures through ClusPros web interface, or enter the PDB codes of the respective structures. The server performs rigid body docking, energy screening, and clustering to produce models. The program output is a short list of putative complexes ranked according to their clustering properties. ClusPro has been participating in CAPRI since January 2003, submitting predictions within 24 h after a target becomes available. In Rounds 6–11, ClusPro generated acceptable submissions for Targets 22, 25, and 27. In general, acceptable models were obtained for the relatively easy targets without substantial conformational changes upon binding. We also describe the new version of ClusPro that incorporates our recently developed docking program PIPER. PIPER is based on the fast Fourier transform correlation approach, but the method is extended to use pairwise interaction potentials, thereby increasing the number of near‐native docked structures. Proteins 2007.

Application of asymmetric statistical potentials to antibody–protein docking

MOTIVATION An effective docking algorithm for antibody-protein antigen complex prediction is an important first step toward design of biologics and vaccines. We have recently developed a new class of knowledge-based interaction potentials called Decoys as the Reference State (DARS) and incorporated DARS into the docking program PIPER based on the fast Fourier transform correlation approach. Although PIPER was the best performer in the latest rounds of the CAPRI protein docking experiment, it is much less accurate for docking antibody-protein antigen pairs than other types of complexes, in spite of incorporating sequence-based information on the location of the paratope. Analysis of antibody-protein antigen complexes has revealed an inherent asymmetry within these interfaces. Specifically, phenylalanine, tryptophan and tyrosine residues highly populate the paratope of the antibody but not the epitope of the antigen. RESULTS Since this asymmetry cannot be adequately modeled using a symmetric pairwise potential, we have removed the usual assumption of symmetry. Interaction statistics were extracted from antibody-protein complexes under the assumption that a particular atom on the antibody is different from the same atom on the antigen protein. The use of the new potential significantly improves the performance of docking for antibody-protein antigen complexes, even without any sequence information on the location of the paratope. We note that the asymmetric potential captures the effects of the multi-body interactions inherent to the complex environment in the antibody-protein antigen interface. AVAILABILITY The method is implemented in the ClusPro protein docking server, available at http://cluspro.bu.edu.

Performance of the first protein docking server ClusPro in CAPRI rounds 3–5

To evaluate the current status of the protein–protein docking field, the CAPRI experiment came to life. Researchers are given the receptor and ligand 3‐dimensional (3D) coordinates before the cocrystallized complex is published. Human predictions of the complex structure are supposed to be submitted within 3 weeks, whereas the server ClusPro has only 24 h and does not make use of any biochemical information. From the 10 targets analyzed in the second evaluation meeting of CAPRI, ClusPro was able to predict meaningful models for 5 targets using only empirical free energy estimates. For two of the targets, the server predictions were assessed to be among the best in the field. Namely, for Targets 8 and 12, ClusPro predicted the model with the most accurate binding‐site interface and the model with the highest percentage of nativelike contacts, among 180 and 230 submissions, respectively. After CAPRI, the server has been further developed to predict oligomeric assemblies, and new tools now allow the user to restrict the search for the complex to specific regions on the protein surface, significantly enhancing the predictive capabilities of the server. The performance of ClusPro in CAPRI Rounds 3–5 suggests that clustering the low free energy (i.e., desolvation and electrostatic energy) conformations of a homogeneous conformational sampling of the binding interface is a fast and reliable procedure to detect protein–protein interactions and eliminate false positives. Not including targets that had a significant structural rearrangement upon binding, the success rate of ClusPro was found to be around 71%. Proteins 2005;60:239–244.

Consensus alignment for reliable framework prediction in homology modeling

MOTIVATION Even the best sequence alignment methods frequently fail to correctly identify the framework regions for which backbones can be copied from the template into the target structure. Since the underprediction and, more significantly, the overprediction of these regions reduces the quality of the final model, it is of prime importance to attain as much as possible of the true structural alignment between target and template. RESULTS We have developed an algorithm called Consensus that consistently provides a high quality alignment for comparative modeling. The method follows from a benchmark analysis of the 3D models generated by ten alignment techniques for a set of 79 homologous protein structure pairs. For 20-to-40% of the targets, these methods yield models with at least 6 A root mean square deviation (RMSD) from the native structure. We have selected the top five performing methods, and developed a consensus algorithm to generate an improved alignment. By building on the individual strength of each method, a set of criteria was implemented to remove the alignment segments that are likely to correspond to structurally dissimilar regions. The automated algorithm was validated on a different set of 48 protein pairs, resulting in 2.2 A average RMSD for the predicted models, and only four cases in which the RMSD exceeded 3 A. The average length of the alignments was about 75% of that found by standard structural superposition methods. The performance of Consensus was consistent from 2 to 32% target-template sequence identity, and hence it can be used for accurate prediction of framework regions in homology modeling.

Docking with PIPER and refinement with SDU in rounds 6-11 of CAPRI.

Our approach to protein–protein docking includes three main steps. First we run PIPER, a new rigid body docking program. PIPER is based on the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) correlation approach that has been extended to use pairwise interactions potentials, thereby substantially increasing the number of near‐native structures generated. The interaction potential is also new, based on the DARS (Decoys As the Reference State) principle. In the second step, the 1000 best energy conformations are clustered, and the 30 largest clusters are retained for refinement. Third, the conformations are refined by a new medium‐range optimization method SDU (Semi‐Definite programming based Underestimation). SDU has been developed to locate global minima within regions of the conformational space in which the energy function is funnel‐like. The method constructs a convex quadratic underestimator function based on a set of local energy minima, and uses this function to guide future sampling. The combined method performed reliably without the direct use of biological information in most CAPRI problems that did not require homology modeling, providing acceptable predictions for targets 21, and medium quality predictions for targets 25 and 26. Proteins 2007.