Journal of Molecular Biology
Volume 272, Issue 1, 12 September 1997, Pages 133-143
Journal home page for Journal of Molecular Biology

Regular article
Prediction of protein-protein interaction sites using patch analysis1

https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1997.1233Get rights and content

Abstract

A method for defining and analysing a series of residue patches on the surface of protein structures is used to predict the location of protein-protein interaction sites. Each residue patch is analysed for six parameters; solvation potential, residue interface propensity, hydrophobicity, planarity, protrusion and accessible surface area. The method involves the calculation of a relative combined score that gives the probability of a surface patch forming protein-protein interactions. Predictions are made for the known structures of protomers from 28 homo-dimers, large protomers from 11 hetero-complexes, small protomers from 14 hetero-complexes, and antigens from six antibody-antigen complexes. The predictions are successful for 66% (39/59) of the structures and the remainder can usually be rationalized in terms of additional interaction sites.

Introduction

The reliable prediction of protein-protein interaction sites is an important goal in the field of molecular recognition. It is of direct relevance to the design of drugs for blocking or modifying protein-protein interactions. Predictions can be divided into two main areas. The first is the docking of two proteins of known structure; a problem which has been addressed extensively using shape complementarity (e.g. Greer and Bush 1978, Wodak and Janin 1978, Kuntz et al 1982, Lee and Rose 1985, Connolly 1986, Jaing and Kim 1991, Helmer-Citterich and Tramontano 1994), chemical complementarity (e.g. Salemme 1976, Warwicker 1989) and combinations of the two (e.g. Walls and Sternberg 1992, Shoichet and Kuntz 1993, Vakser and Aflalo 1994). The second area of prediction, and the one addressed here, is the identification of putative interaction sites upon the surface of an isolated protein, known to be involved in protein-protein interactions, but where the structure of the partner or complex is not known.

It has been observed that protein-protein interaction sites in proteins have specific characteristics (e.g. Chothia and Janin 1975, Argos 1988, Janin et al 1988, Janin and Chothia 1990, Jones and Thornton 1995, Jones and Thornton 1996). In the accompanying paper (Jones & Thornton, 1997) we addressed the problem of comparing the observed interface with other similar sized patches on the protein surface using a series of parameters. It was concluded that it was possible to differentiate, to some degree, a protein interaction site from other similar patches on the surface of a protein. In the work presented here the use of multiple parameters for interface differentiation has been developed into a simple algorithm for the prediction of putative recognition sites for isolated proteins. Potentially this is a difficult problem, given that nothing is known about the partner protein. Therefore in this first attempt at prediction a relatively simple approach has been explored, to ascertain if prediction on this basis is possible. In this approach residue patches are defined on the surface of isolated proteins and analysed for a series of six parameters (solvation potential, residue interface propensity, hydrophobicity, planarity, protrusion and accessible surface area), with the aim of identifying those patches most likely to be involved in protein-protein interactions.

Section snippets

Prediction of interface sites in homo-dimer proteins

The prediction algorithm, as described in Methods, was used to identify putative interface sites on the surface of isolated protomers from 28 non-homologous homo-dimers (see Table 1 in accompanying paper, Jones & Thornton, 1997). The interfaces of the homo-dimers were predicted by defining a combined score for each surface patch based on six parameters. The combined score was derived such that a surface patch that had a high solvation potential, a high residue interface propensity and was the

Discussion

Patch predictions were made for 59 complexes and 66% of the predictions were defined as correct. It was found that in some cases the predictions were unsuccessful because the size of patch used was either too large or too small. In addition some unsuccessful predictions could be attributed to the presence of alternative interaction sites on the surface of the proteins. This also explained why, in some cases where the known interface was predicted, alternative patches were also identified as

Definition of a surface patch

A patch was defined as described in the accompanying paper, with a central surface accessible residue and n nearest neighbours, where n was defined as a variable. The choice of the size of the patch (n) was crucial to the prediction. It has been observed that the size of an interface region is approximately correlated to the size of the protomer (Jones & Thornton, 1995). For the homo-dimer predictions, this correlation was calculated in terms of the number of residues in the protomer (NRp) and

Acknowledgements

S. J. was funded by a BBSRC studentship, sponsored by Zeneca Pharmaceuticals. We thank D. Tims for useful discussions.

References (31)

Cited by (379)

  • Concepts and Experimental Protocols of Modelling and Informatics in Drug Design

    2020, Concepts and Experimental Protocols of Modelling and Informatics in Drug Design
  • Physicochemical determinants of antibody-protein interactions

    2020, Advances in Protein Chemistry and Structural Biology
    Citation Excerpt :

    In addition to the Kabat numbering scheme, other commonly used numbering systems and their comparisons to each other have been discussed in a recent study (Dondelinger et al., 2018). Interacting protein surfaces show good conformational and electrostatic complementarity which is usually provided by certain surface patches (Cohen et al., 2005; Jones & Thornton, 1997; McCoy, Chandana Epa, & Colman, 1997). However, there are significant differences between antibody-antigen (paratope-epitope) and other types of protein-protein interaction surfaces, the difference is particularly coming from physicochemical content of interfacing residues (Collis, Brouwer, & Martin, 2003; Zhao & Li, 2010).

  • SENSDeep: An Ensemble Deep Learning Method for Protein–Protein Interaction Sites Prediction

    2023, Interdisciplinary Sciences – Computational Life Sciences
View all citing articles on Scopus
1

Edited by G. von Heijne

View full text