Journal of Molecular Biology
Regular articlePrediction of protein-protein interaction sites using patch analysis1
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)
- et al.
Crystal and molecular structure of the bovine α-chymotrypsin-eglin c complex at 2.0 Å resolution
J. Mol. Biol.
(1992) - et al.
PuzzleA new method for automated protein docking based on surface shape complementarity
J. Mol. Biol.
(1994) - et al.
The structure of protein-protein recognition sites
J. Biol. Chem.
(1990) - et al.
Surface, subunit interfaces and interior of oligomeric proteins
J. Mol. Biol.
(1988) - et al.
Protein-protein interactionsa review of protein dimer structures
Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol.
(1995) - et al.
A geometric approach to macromolecular-ligand interactions
J. Mol. Biol.
(1982) - et al.
An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families
J. Mol. Biol.
(1996) An hypothetical structure for an intermolecular electron transfer complex of cytochromes c and b5
J. Mol. Biol.
(1976)- et al.
Refined structure of yeast apo-enolase at 2.25 Å resolution
J. Mol. Biol.
(1990) - et al.
Refined structure of the complex of subtilisin BPN′ and Streptomyces subtilisin inhibitor at 1.8 Å resolution
J. Mol. Biol.
(1991)
Refined crystal structure of the influenza virus N9 neuraminidase-NC41 Fab complex
J. Mol. Biol.
New algorithm to model protein-protein recognition based on surface complementarityapplications to antibody-antigen docking
J. Mol. Biol.
Investigating protein-protein interaction surfaces using a reduced stereochemical and electrostatic model
J. Mol. Biol.
Structure of a complex of catabolite gene activator protein and cyclic AMP refined at 2.5 Å resolution
J. Mol. Biol.
Computer analysis of protein-protein interaction
J. Mol. Biol.
Cited by (379)
Understanding the contagiousness of Covid-19 strains: A geometric approach
2024, Journal of Molecular Graphics and ModellingConcepts and Experimental Protocols of Modelling and Informatics in Drug Design
2020, Concepts and Experimental Protocols of Modelling and Informatics in Drug DesignPhysicochemical determinants of antibody-protein interactions
2020, Advances in Protein Chemistry and Structural BiologyCitation 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).
Multi-perspectives and challenges in identifying B-cell epitopes
2023, Protein ScienceSENSDeep: An Ensemble Deep Learning Method for Protein–Protein Interaction Sites Prediction
2023, Interdisciplinary Sciences – Computational Life Sciences
- 1
Edited by G. von Heijne