A Non-Redundant Benchmark for Symmetric Protein Docking

Yumeng Yan; Sheng-You Huang

doi:10.26599/BDMA.2018.9020035

Big Data Mining and Analytics 2019, 2(2): 92-99 https://doi.org/10.26599/BDMA.2018.9020035

Open Access | Issue | Published: 14 May 2019

A Non-Redundant Benchmark for Symmetric Protein Docking

Show Author's Information Hide Author's Information Yumeng Yan, Sheng-You Huang(

)

∙ Institute of Biophysics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China.

Keywords:

benchmark, symmetric protein

Cite this article:

Yan Y, Huang S-Y. A Non-Redundant Benchmark for Symmetric Protein Docking. Big Data Mining and Analytics, 2019, 2(2): 92-99. https://doi.org/10.26599/BDMA.2018.9020035

Download citation

EndNote(RIS)

BibTeX

565

Views

Downloads

Citations

Crossref

WoS

Scopus

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Abstract

Symmetric proteins play important roles in many biological processes, such as signal transduction and molecular transportation. Therefore, determining the symmetric oligomeric structure of subunits is crucial to investigate the molecular mechanism of the related processes. Due to the high cost and technical difficulties associated with many experimental methods, computational approaches, such as molecular docking, have played an important complementary role in the determination of symmetric complex structures, in which a benchmark data set is pressingly needed. In the present work, we develop a comprehensive and non-redundant benchmark for symmetric protein docking based on the structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). The diverse dataset consists of 251 targets, including 212 cases with cyclic groups symmetry, 35 cases with dihedral groups symmetry, 3 cases with cubic groups symmetry, and 1 case with helical symmetry. According to the conformational changes in the interface between bound and unbound structures, the 251 targets were classified into three groups: 176 "easy", 37 "medium", and 38 "difficult" cases. A preliminary docking test on the targets of cyclic groups symmetry with M-ZDOCK indicated that symmetric multimer docking remains challenging. The benchmark will be beneficial for the development of symmetric protein docking algorithms. The proposed benchmark data set is available for download at http://huanglab.phys.hust.edu.cn/SDBenchmark/.

Full text

Abstract

Full text

Outline

About this article

A Non-Redundant Benchmark for Symmetric Protein Docking

Show Author's information Hide Author's Information Yumeng Yan, Sheng-You Huang(

)

∙ Institute of Biophysics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China.

Abstract

Keywords: benchmark, symmetric protein

References(38)

[1]

Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, The Noether Theorems. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2011, pp. 55-64.

DOI

[2]

D. S. Goodsell and A. J. Olson, Structural symmetry and protein function, Ann. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 105-153, 2000.

DOI Google Scholar

[3]

I. A. Vakser, Protein-protein docking: From interaction to interactome, Biophys. J., vol. 107, no. 8, pp. 1785-1793, 2014.

DOI Google Scholar

[4]

G. Waksman and C. Sansom, Introduction: Proteomics and protein-protein interactions: Biology, chemistry, bioinformatics, and drug design, in Proteomics and Protein-Protein Interactions, G. Waksman, ed. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 2005, pp. 1-18.

DOI

[5]

S. Y. Huang, Search strategies and evaluation in protein-protein docking: Principles, advances and challenges, Drug Discov. Today, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1081-1096, 2014.

DOI Google Scholar

[6]

R. J. Bienstock, Computational drug design targeting protein-protein interactions, Curr. Pharm. Des., vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1240-1254, 2012.

DOI Google Scholar

[7]

Y. M. Yan, Z. Y. Wen, X. X. Wang, and S. Y. Huang, Addressing recent docking challenges: A hybrid strategy to integrate template-based and free protein-protein docking, Proteins, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 497-512, 2017.

DOI Google Scholar

[8]

B. Pierce, W. Tong, and Z. Weng, M-ZDOCK: A grid-based approach for Cn symmetric multimer docking, Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1472-1478, 2004.

DOI Google Scholar

[9]

B. G. Pierce, K. Wiehe, H. Hwang, B. H. Kim, T. Vreven, and Z. P. Weng, ZDOCK server: Interactive docking prediction of protein-protein complexes and symmetric multimers, Bioinformatics, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1771-1773, 2014.

DOI Google Scholar

[10]

I. André, P. Bradley, C. Wang, and D. Baker, Prediction of the structure of symmetrical protein assemblies, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 104, no. 45, pp. 17656-17661, 2007.

DOI Google Scholar

[11]

D. Schneidman-Duhovny, Y. Inbar, R. Nussinov, and H. J. Wolfson, PatchDock and SymmDock: Servers for rigid and symmetric docking, Nucleic Acids Res., vol. 33, pp. 363-367, 2005.

DOI Google Scholar

[12]

D. Schneidman-Duhovny, Y. Inbar, R. Nussinov, and H. J. Wolfson, Geometry-based flexible and symmetric protein docking, Proteins, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 224-231, 2005.

DOI Google Scholar

[13]

M. Baek, T. Park, L. Heo, C. Park, and C. Seok, GalaxyHomomer: A web server for protein homo-oligomer structure prediction from a monomer sequence or structure, Nucleic Acids Res., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 320-324, 2017.

DOI Google Scholar

[14]

I. A. Vakser, Evaluation of GRAMM low-resolution docking methodology on the hemagglutinin-antibody complex, Proteins, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 226-230, 1997.

DOI

[15]

C. Dominguez, R. Boelens, and A. M. J. J. Bonvin, HADDOCK: A protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information, J. Am. Chem. Soc., vol. 125, no. 7, pp. 1731-1737, 2003.

DOI Google Scholar

[16]

D. W. Ritchie and G. J. L. Kemp, Protein docking using spherical polar Fourier correlations, Proteins, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 178-194, 2000.

DOI

[17]

M. Zacharias, Protein-protein docking with a reduced protein model accounting for side-chain flexibility, Protein Sci., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1271-1282, 2003.

DOI Google Scholar

[18]

M. Torchala, I. H. Moal, R. A. G. Chaleil, J. Fernandez-Recio, and P. A. Bates, SwarmDock: A server for flexible proteinprotein docking, Bioinformatics, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 807-809, 2013.

DOI Google Scholar

[19]

D. Kozakov, D. R. Hall, B. Xia, K. A. Porter, D. Padhorny, C. Yueh, D. Beglov, and S. Vajda, The ClusPro web server for protein-protein docking, Nat. Protoc., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 255-278, 2017.

DOI Google Scholar

[20]

T. M. Cheng, T. L. Blundell, and J. Fernandez-Recio, pyDock: Electrostatics and desolvation for effective scoring of rigid-body protein-protein docking, Proteins, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 503-515, 2007.

DOI Google Scholar

[21]

Y. M. Yan, D. Zhang, P. Zhou, B. T. Li, and S. Y. Huang, HDOCK: A web server for protein-protein and protein-DNA/RNA docking based on a hybrid strategy, Nucleic Acids Res., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 365-373, 2017.

DOI Google Scholar

[22]

Y. Yan, H. Tao, and S. Y. Huang, HSYMDOCK: A docking web server for predicting the structure of protein homo-oligomers with Cn or Dn symmetry, Nucleic Acids Res., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 423-431, 2018.

DOI Google Scholar

[23]

J. Janin, K. Henrick, J. Moult, L. T. Eyck, M. J. Sternberg, S. Vajda, I. Vakser, and S. J. Wodak, Critical assessment of predicted interactions, Proteins, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 2-9, 2003.

DOI Google Scholar

[24]

J. B. Jr. Dunbar, R. D. Smith, C. Y. Yang, P. M. Ung, K. W. Lexa, N. A. Khazanov, J. A. Stuckey, S. M. Wang, and H. A. Carlson, CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: Selection of the protein-ligand complexes, J. Chem. Inf. Model., vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 2036-2046, 2011.

DOI Google Scholar

[25]

S. Y. Huang and X. Q. Zou, A non-redundant structure dataset for benchmarking protein-RNA computational docking, J. Comput. Chem., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 311-318, 2013.

DOI Google Scholar

[26]

H. Hwang, T. Vreven, J. Janin, and Z. P. Weng, Protein-protein docking benchmark version 4.0, Proteins, vol. 78, no. 15, pp. 3111-3114, 2010.

DOI Google Scholar

[27]

T. Vreven, I. H. Moal, A. Vangone, B. G. Pierce, P. L. Kastritis, M. Torchala, R. Chaleil, B. Jiménez-García, P. A. Bates, J. Fernandez-Recio, et al., Updates to the integrated protein-protein interaction benchmarks: Docking benchmark version 5 and affinity benchmark version 2, J. Mol. Biol., vol. 427, no. 19, pp. 3031-3041, 2015.

DOI Google Scholar

[28]

S. Y. Liu, Y. Gao, and I. A. Vakser, DOCKGROUND protein-protein docking decoy set, Bioinformatics, vol. 24, no. 22, pp. 2634-2635, 2008.

DOI Google Scholar

[29]

I. Anishchenko, P. J. Kundrotas, A. V. Tuzikov, and I. A. Vakser, Protein models docking benchmark 2, Proteins, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 891-897, 2015.

DOI Google Scholar

[30]

H. M. Berman, J. Westbrook, Z. K. Feng, G. Gilliland, T. N. Bhat, H. Weissig, I. N. Shindyalov, and P. E. Bourne, The protein data bank, Nucleic Acids Res., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 235-242, 2000.

DOI Google Scholar

[31]

A. G. Murzin, S. E. Brenner, T. Hubbard, and C. Chothia, SCOP: A structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures, J. Mol. Biol., vol. 247, no. 4, pp. 536-540, 1995.

DOI Google Scholar

[32]

L. Lo Conte, S. E. Brenner, T. J. P. Hubbard, C. Chothia, and A. G. Murzin, SCOP database in 2002: Refinements accommodate structural genomics, Nucleic Acids Res., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 264-267, 2002.

DOI Google Scholar

[33]

C. Camacho, G. Coulouris, V. Avagyan, N. Ma, J. Papadopoulos, K. Bealer, and T. L. Madden, BLAST+: Architecture and applications, BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 10, p. 421, 2009.

DOI Google Scholar

[34]

E. F. Pettersen, T. D. Goddard, C. C. Huang, G. S. Couch, D. M. Greenblatt, E. C. Meng, and T. E. Ferrin, UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis, J. Comput. Chem., vol. 25, no. 13, pp. 1605-1612, 2004.

DOI Google Scholar

[35]

Y. Zhang and J. Skolnick, Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality, Proteins, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 702-710, 2004.

DOI Google Scholar

[36]

Y. M. Yan and S. Y. Huang, RRDB: A comprehensive and non-redundant benchmark for RNA-RNA docking and scoring, Bioinformatics, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 453-458, 2018.

DOI Google Scholar

[37]

R. Méndez, R. Leplae, M. F. Lensink, and S. J. Wodak, Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3-5 shows progress in docking procedures, Proteins, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 150-169, 2005.

DOI Google Scholar

[38]

M. F. Lensink, R. Méndez, and S. J. Wodak, Docking and scoring protein complexes: CAPRI 3rd edition, Proteins, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 704-718, 2007.

DOI Google Scholar

About this article

Publication history

Acknowledgements

Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 14 July 2018

Accepted: 10 October 2018

Published: 14 May 2019

Issue date: June 2019

Copyright

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Nos. 2016YFC1305800 and 2016YFC1305805), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31670724), and the startup grant of Huazhong University of Science and Technology.