Analysis of the interface variability in NMR structure ensembles of protein-protein complexes

Accurate Representation of Protein-Ligand Structural Diversity in the Protein Data Bank (PDB)

The number of available protein structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) has considerably increased in recent years. Thanks to the growth of structures and complexes, numerous large-scale studies have been done in various research areas, e.g., protein-protein, protein-DNA, or in drug discovery. While protein redundancy was only simply managed using simple protein sequence identity threshold, the similarity of protein-ligand complexes should also be considered from a structural perspective. Hence, the protein-ligand duplicates in the PDB are widely known, but were never quantitatively assessed, as they are quite complex to analyze and compare. Here, we present a specific clustering of protein-ligand structures to avoid bias found in different studies. The methodology is based on binding site superposition, and a combination of weighted Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) assessment and hierarchical clustering. Repeated structures of proteins of interest are highlighted and only representative conformations were conserved for a non-biased view of protein distribution. Three types of cases are described based on the number of distinct conformations identified for each complex. Defining these categories decreases by 3.84-fold the number of complexes, and offers more refined results compared to a protein sequence-based method. Widely distinct conformations were analyzed using normalized B-factors. Furthermore, a non-redundant dataset was generated for future molecular interactions analysis or virtual screening studies.

Distinguishing crystallographic from biological interfaces in protein complexes: role of intermolecular contacts and energetics for classification

BACKGROUND

Study of macromolecular assemblies is fundamental to understand functions in cells. X-ray crystallography is the most common technique to solve their 3D structure at atomic resolution. In a crystal, however, both biologically-relevant interfaces and non-specific interfaces resulting from crystallographic packing are observed. Due to the complexity of the biological assemblies currently tackled, classifying those interfaces, i.e. distinguishing biological from crystal lattice interfaces, is not trivial and often prone to errors. In this context, analyzing the physico-chemical characteristics of biological/crystal interfaces can help researchers identify possible features that distinguish them and gain a better understanding of the systems.

RESULTS

In this work, we are providing new insights into the differences between biological and crystallographic complexes by focusing on "pair-properties" of interfaces that have not yet been fully investigated. We investigated properties such intermolecular residue-residue contacts (already successfully applied to the prediction of binding affinities) and interaction energies (electrostatic, Van der Waals and desolvation). By using the XtalMany and BioMany interface datasets, we show that interfacial residue contacts, classified as a function of their physico-chemical properties, can distinguish between biological and crystallographic interfaces. The energetic terms show, on average, higher values for crystal interfaces, reflecting a less stable interface due to crystal packing compared to biological interfaces. By using a variety of machine learning approaches, we trained a new interface classification predictor based on contacts and interaction energetic features. Our predictor reaches an accuracy in classifying biological vs crystal interfaces of 0.92, compared to 0.88 for EPPIC (one of the main state-of-the-art classifiers reporting same performance as PISA).

CONCLUSION

In this work we have gained insights into the nature of intermolecular contacts and energetics terms distinguishing biological from crystallographic interfaces. Our findings might have a broader applicability in structural biology, for example for the identification of near native poses in docking. We implemented our classification approach into an easy-to-use and fast software, freely available to the scientific community from http://github.com/haddocking/interface-classifier .

Introducing a Clustering Step in a Consensus Approach for the Scoring of Protein-Protein Docking Models

Correctly scoring protein-protein docking models to single out native-like ones is an open challenge. It is also an object of assessment in CAPRI (Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions), the community-wide blind docking experiment. We introduced in the field the first pure consensus method, CONSRANK, which ranks models based on their ability to match the most conserved contacts in the ensemble they belong to. In CAPRI, scorers are asked to evaluate a set of available models and select the top ten ones, based on their own scoring approach. Scorers’ performance is ranked based on the number of targets/interfaces for which they could provide at least one correct solution. In such terms, blind testing in CAPRI Round 30 (a joint prediction round with CASP11) has shown that critical cases for CONSRANK are represented by targets showing multiple interfaces or for which only a very small number of correct solutions are available. To address these challenging cases, CONSRANK has now been modified to include a contact-based clustering of the models as a preliminary step of the scoring process. We used an agglomerative hierarchical clustering based on the number of common inter-residue contacts within the models. Two criteria, with different thresholds, were explored in the cluster generation, setting either the number of common contacts or of total clusters. For each clustering approach, after selecting the top (most populated) ten clusters, CONSRANK was run on these clusters and the top-ranked model for each cluster was selected, in the limit of 10 models per target. We have applied our modified scoring approach, Clust-CONSRANK, to SCORE_SET, a set of CAPRI scoring models made recently available by CAPRI assessors, and to the subset of homodimeric targets in CAPRI Round 30 for which CONSRANK failed to include a correct solution within the ten selected models. Results show that, for the challenging cases, the clustering step typically enriches the ten top ranked models in native-like solutions. The best performing clustering approaches we tested indeed lead to more than double the number of cases for which at least one correct solution can be included within the top ten ranked models.