Search

Your search keyword '"0000-0002-0701-6545"' showing total 9 results
Start Over Author "0000-0002-0701-6545"
9 results on '"0000-0002-0701-6545"'

1. Blind prediction of homo- and hetero- protein complexes: The CASP13-CAPRI experiment

Author

Lensink, Marc F., Brysbaert, Guillaume, Nadzirin, Nurul, Velankar, Sameer, Chaleil, Raphaël A. G., Gerguri, Tereza, Bates, Paul A., Laine, Elodie, Carbone, Alessandra, Grudinin, Sergei, Kong, Ren, Liu, Ran-Ran, Xu, Xi-Ming, Shi, Hang, Chang, Shan, Eisenstein, Miriam, Karczynska, Agnieszka, Czaplewski, Cezary, Lubecka, Emilia, Lipska, Agnieszka, Krupa, Paweł, Mozolewska, Magdalena, Golon, Łukasz, Samsonov, Sergey, Liwo, Adam, Crivelli, Silvia, Pagès, Guillaume, Karasikov, Mikhail, Kadukova, Maria, Yan, Yumeng, Huang, Sheng-You, Rosell, Mireia, Rodríguez-Lumbreras, Luis A., Romero-Durana, Miguel, Díaz-Bueno, Lucía, Fernandez-Recio, Juan, Christoffer, Charles, Terashi, Genki, Shin, Woong-Hee, Aderinwale, Tunde, Maddhuri Venkata Subraman, Sai Raghavendra, Kihara, Daisuke, Kozakov, Dima, Vajda, Sandor, Porter, Kathryn, Padhorny, Dzmitry, Desta, Israel, Beglov, Dmitri, Ignatov, Mikhail, Kotelnikov, Sergey, Moal, Iain H., Ritchie, David W., Chauvot de Beauchêne, Isaure, Maigret, Bernard, Devignes, Marie-Dominique, Ruiz Echartea, Maria E., Barradas-Bautista, Didier, Cao, Zhen, Cavallo, Luigi, Oliva, Romina, Cao, Yue, Shen, Yang, Baek, Minkyung, Park, Taeyong, Woo, Hyeonuk, Seok, Chaok, Braitbard, Merav, Bitton, Lirane, Scheidman-Duhovny, Dina, Dapkūnas, Justas, Olechnovič, Kliment, Venclovas, Česlovas, Kundrotas, Petras J., Belkin, Saveliy, Chakravarty, Devlina, Badal, Varsha D., Vakser, Ilya A., Vreven, Thom, Vangaveti, Sweta, Borrman, Tyler, Weng, Zhiping, Guest, Johnathan D., Gowthaman, Ragul, Pierce, Brian G., Xu, Xianjin, Duan, Rui, Qiu, Liming, Hou, Jie, Ryan Merideth, Benjamin, Ma, Zhiwei, Cheng, Jianlin, Zou, Xiaoqin, Koukos, Panagiotis I., Roel-Touris, Jorge, Ambrosetti, Francesco, Geng, Cunliang, Schaarschmidt, Jörg, Trellet, Mikael E., Melquiond, Adrien S. J., Xue, Li, Jiménez-García, Brian, van Noort, Charlotte W., Honorato, Rodrigo V., Bonvin, Alexandre M. J. J., Wodak, Shoshana J., 0000-0003-3957-9470, 0000-0003-2759-2088, 0000-0003-0621-0925, 0000-0003-2098-5743, 0000-0001-7169-9398, 0000-0002-0294-3403, 0000-0002-4209-4565, 0000-0002-7787-8896, 0000-0002-3986-7686, 0000-0002-6163-6323, 0000-0003-4091-6614, 0000-0003-0464-4500, 0000-0002-4960-5487, 0000-0002-7035-3042, 0000-0002-1703-7796, 0000-0002-1419-9888, 0000-0002-0496-6107, 0000-0002-4215-0213, 0000-0002-5743-2934, 0000-0003-3413-806X, 0000-0002-3032-7966, 0000-0002-1409-8358, 0000-0001-7369-1322, 0000-0002-0701-6545, Unité de Glycobiologie Structurale et Fonctionnelle UMR 8576 (UGSF), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Université de Lille-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), European Bioinformatics Institute [Hinxton] (EMBL-EBI), EMBL Heidelberg, The Francis Crick Institute [London], School of Geographical Sciences [Bristol], University of Bristol [Bristol], Biologie Computationnelle et Quantitative = Laboratory of Computational and Quantitative Biology (LCQB), Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut de Biologie Paris Seine (IBPS), Sorbonne Université (SU)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), Ministère de l'Education nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (M.E.N.E.S.R.), Algorithms for Modeling and Simulation of Nanosystems (NANO-D), Inria Grenoble - Rhône-Alpes, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology (Grenoble INP )-Laboratoire Jean Kuntzmann (LJK ), Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology (Grenoble INP )-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Grenoble Alpes [2016-2019] (UGA [2016-2019])-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Grenoble Alpes [2016-2019] (UGA [2016-2019]), JiangSu University, Chemical Research Support [Rehovot], Weizmann Institute of Science [Rehovot, Israël], University of Gdańsk (UG), Department of Environmental Analytics [Univ Gdańsk], Faculty of Chemistry [Univ Gdańsk], University of Gdańsk (UG)-University of Gdańsk (UG), Institute of Physics [Warsaw] (IFPAN), Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN), Department of Computer Science [Davis] (UC Davis), University of California [Davis] (UC Davis), University of California-University of California, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology [Moscow] (MIPT), Huazhong University of Science and Technology [Wuhan] (HUST), Barcelona Supercomputing Center - Centro Nacional de Supercomputacion (BSC - CNS), Purdue University [West Lafayette], Kitasato University, Stony Brook University [SUNY] (SBU), State University of New York (SUNY), Department of Biomedical Engineering [Boston], Boston University [Boston] (BU), Computational Algorithms for Protein Structures and Interactions (CAPSID), Inria Nancy - Grand Est, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Department of Complex Systems, Artificial Intelligence & Robotics (LORIA - AIS), Laboratoire Lorrain de Recherche en Informatique et ses Applications (LORIA), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Lorraine (UL)-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Lorraine (UL)-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Laboratoire Lorrain de Recherche en Informatique et ses Applications (LORIA), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Lorraine (UL)-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Lorraine (UL), Technische Universität Munchen - Université Technique de Munich [Munich, Allemagne] (TUM), King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), University of Naples Federico II, Service des Recherches Métallurgiques Appliquées (SRMA), Département des Matériaux pour le Nucléaire (DMN), CEA-Direction des Energies (ex-Direction de l'Energie Nucléaire) (CEA-DES (ex-DEN)), Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Université Paris-Saclay-CEA-Direction des Energies (ex-Direction de l'Energie Nucléaire) (CEA-DES (ex-DEN)), Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Université Paris-Saclay, Department of Chemistry, Seoul National University [Seoul] (SNU), The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJ), Vilnius University [Vilnius], Department of Molecular Biosciences [Lawrence], University of Kansas [Lawrence] (KU), University of Kansas [Kansas City], University of Massachusetts Medical School [Worcester] (UMASS), University of Massachusetts System (UMASS), Program in Bioinformatics and Integrative Biology [Worcester], University of Massachusetts System (UMASS)-University of Massachusetts System (UMASS), University of Maryland [Baltimore], Beijing University of Technology, University of Missouri [Columbia] (Mizzou), University of Missouri System, Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research [Utrecht], Utrecht University [Utrecht], Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center [Columbia], University of Missouri System-University of Missouri System, Shandong University, Laboratoire d'Informatique pour la Mécanique et les Sciences de l'Ingénieur (LIMSI), Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 (UP11)-Sorbonne Université - UFR d'Ingénierie (UFR 919), Sorbonne Université (SU)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Paris Saclay (COmUE), University of California [Santa Cruz] (UCSC), University of California, The Hospital for sick children [Toronto] (SickKids), Unité de Glycobiologie Structurale et Fonctionnelle - UMR 8576 (UGSF), Université de Lille-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES), IHES, The Francis Crick Institute, Institut de Biologie Paris Seine (IBPS), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Laboratoire Jean Kuntzmann (LJK), Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 (UPMF)-Université Joseph Fourier - Grenoble 1 (UJF)-Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA)-Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 (UPMF)-Université Joseph Fourier - Grenoble 1 (UJF)-Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA)-Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble (INPG), Weizmann Institute of Science, University of Gdańsk, Department of Environmental Analytics [Gdańsk], Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Université de Lorraine (UL)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Université de Lorraine (UL)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Laboratoire Lorrain de Recherche en Informatique et ses Applications (LORIA), Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Université de Lorraine (UL)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Lorraine (UL)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Technische Universität München [München] (TUM), CEA-Direction de l'Energie Nucléaire (CEA-DEN), Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Université Paris-Saclay-CEA-Direction de l'Energie Nucléaire (CEA-DEN), University of Missouri [Columbia], Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 (UP11)-Université Paris-Saclay-Sorbonne Université - UFR d'Ingénierie (UFR 919), Sorbonne Université (SU)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Paris Saclay (COmUE), Université de Lille, CNRS, Unité de Glycobiologie Structurale et Fonctionnelle UMR 8576 [UGSF], Agence Nationale de la Recherche (France), Cancer Research UK, European Commission, Medical Research Council (UK), National Institutes of Health (US), National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Research Foundation of Korea, National Science Foundation (US), Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (España), Università degli Studi di Napoli PARTHENOPE, Wellcome Trust, Université de Lille-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Algorithms for Modeling and Simulating Nanosystems [2018-...] (NANO-D-POST [2018-2020]), Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria), Department of Computer Science [Univ California Davis] (CS - UC Davis), University of California (UC)-University of California (UC), University of Naples Federico II = Università degli studi di Napoli Federico II, University of California [Santa Cruz] (UC Santa Cruz), University of California (UC), and Grudinin, Sergei

Subjects
Models, Molecular, Computer science, Protein Conformation, Protein complexes, Template‐based modeling, Oligomeric state, Biochemistry, Docking, protein-protein interaction, Structural Biology, Protein Interaction Mapping, Taverne, Blind prediction, Protein assemblies, Databases, Protein, [INFO.INFO-BI] Computer Science [cs]/Bioinformatics [q-bio.QM], 0303 health sciences, oligomeric state, 030302 biochemistry & molecular biology, protein assemblies, computer.file_format, 3. Good health, CASP, docking, blind prediction, Protein‐protein interaction, CAPRI, proteincomplexes, Algorithms, Protein Binding, protein complexes, template-based modeling, Computational biology, Article, Protein–protein interaction, 03 medical and health sciences, protein‐protein interaction, template‐based modeling, Molecular Biology, 030304 developmental biology, Binding Sites, Computational Biology, Proteins, Protein Data Bank, Docking (molecular), Structural Homology, Protein, [INFO.INFO-BI]Computer Science [cs]/Bioinformatics [q-bio.QM], computer, Software
Abstract

We present the results for CAPRI Round 46, the third joint CASP‐CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round comprised a total of 20 targets including 14 homo‐oligomers and 6 heterocomplexes. Eight of the homo‐oligomer targets and one heterodimer comprised proteins that could be readily modeled using templates from the Protein Data Bank, often available for the full assembly. The remaining 11 targets comprised 5 homodimers, 3 heterodimers, and two higher‐order assemblies. These were more difficult to model, as their prediction mainly involved “ab‐initio” docking of subunit models derived from distantly related templates. A total of ~30 CAPRI groups, including 9 automatic servers, submitted on average ~2000 models per target. About 17 groups participated in the CAPRI scoring rounds, offered for most targets, submitting ~170 models per target. The prediction performance, measured by the fraction of models of acceptable quality or higher submitted across all predictors groups, was very good to excellent for the nine easy targets. Poorer performance was achieved by predictors for the 11 difficult targets, with medium and high quality models submitted for only 3 of these targets. A similar performance “gap” was displayed by scorer groups, highlighting yet again the unmet challenge of modeling the conformational changes of the protein components that occur upon binding or that must be accounted for in template‐based modeling. Our analysis also indicates that residues in binding interfaces were less well predicted in this set of targets than in previous Rounds, providing useful insights for directions of future improvements., Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Grant/Award Number: ANR‐15‐CE11‐0029‐03; Cancer Research UK, Grant/Award Number: FC001003; H2020 European Institute of Innovation and Technology, Grant/Award Numbers: 675728, 777536, 823830; Lietuvos Mokslo Taryba, Grant/Award Number: S‐MIP‐17‐60; Medical Research Council, Grant/Award Number: FC001003; National Institutes of Health, Grant/Award Numbers: R01GM074255, R01GM123055, R35GM124952; National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant/Award Number: 31670724; National Research Foundation of Korea, Grant/Award Number: 2016M3C4A7952630; National Science Foundation, Grant/Award Number: DBI1565107; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: 718.015.001; Spanish >Programma Estatal I+D+i>, Grant/Award Number: BIO2016‐79930‐R; University Parthenope, Grant/Award Number: Finanziamento per il Sostegno alla Ricerca Individ; Wellcome Trust, Grant/Award Number: FC001003

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Discriminating physiological from non-physiological interfaces in structures of protein complexes: A community-wide study.

Author

Schweke H, Xu Q, Tauriello G, Pantolini L, Schwede T, Cazals F, Lhéritier A, Fernandez-Recio J, Rodríguez-Lumbreras LA, Schueler-Furman O, Varga JK, Jiménez-García B, Réau MF, Bonvin AMJJ, Savojardo C, Martelli PL, Casadio R, Tubiana J, Wolfson HJ, Oliva R, Barradas-Bautista D, Ricciardelli T, Cavallo L, Venclovas Č, Olechnovič K, Guerois R, Andreani J, Martin J, Wang X, Terashi G, Sarkar D, Christoffer C, Aderinwale T, Verburgt J, Kihara D, Marchand A, Correia BE, Duan R, Qiu L, Xu X, Zhang S, Zou X, Dey S, Dunbrack RL, Levy ED, and Wodak SJ

Subjects
Reproducibility of Results, Protein Binding, Proteins metabolism
Abstract

Reliably scoring and ranking candidate models of protein complexes and assigning their oligomeric state from the structure of the crystal lattice represent outstanding challenges. A community-wide effort was launched to tackle these challenges. The latest resources on protein complexes and interfaces were exploited to derive a benchmark dataset consisting of 1677 homodimer protein crystal structures, including a balanced mix of physiological and non-physiological complexes. The non-physiological complexes in the benchmark were selected to bury a similar or larger interface area than their physiological counterparts, making it more difficult for scoring functions to differentiate between them. Next, 252 functions for scoring protein-protein interfaces previously developed by 13 groups were collected and evaluated for their ability to discriminate between physiological and non-physiological complexes. A simple consensus score generated using the best performing score of each of the 13 groups, and a cross-validated Random Forest (RF) classifier were created. Both approaches showed excellent performance, with an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.93 and 0.94, respectively, outperforming individual scores developed by different groups. Additionally, AlphaFold2 engines recalled the physiological dimers with significantly higher accuracy than the non-physiological set, lending support to the reliability of our benchmark dataset annotations. Optimizing the combined power of interface scoring functions and evaluating it on challenging benchmark datasets appears to be a promising strategy., (© 2023 Wiley-VCH GmbH.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Prediction of protein assemblies, the next frontier: The CASP14-CAPRI experiment.

Author

Lensink MF, Brysbaert G, Mauri T, Nadzirin N, Velankar S, Chaleil RAG, Clarence T, Bates PA, Kong R, Liu B, Yang G, Liu M, Shi H, Lu X, Chang S, Roy RS, Quadir F, Liu J, Cheng J, Antoniak A, Czaplewski C, Giełdoń A, Kogut M, Lipska AG, Liwo A, Lubecka EA, Maszota-Zieleniak M, Sieradzan AK, Ślusarz R, Wesołowski PA, Zięba K, Del Carpio Muñoz CA, Ichiishi E, Harmalkar A, Gray JJ, Bonvin AMJJ, Ambrosetti F, Vargas Honorato R, Jandova Z, Jiménez-García B, Koukos PI, Van Keulen S, Van Noort CW, Réau M, Roel-Touris J, Kotelnikov S, Padhorny D, Porter KA, Alekseenko A, Ignatov M, Desta I, Ashizawa R, Sun Z, Ghani U, Hashemi N, Vajda S, Kozakov D, Rosell M, Rodríguez-Lumbreras LA, Fernandez-Recio J, Karczynska A, Grudinin S, Yan Y, Li H, Lin P, Huang SY, Christoffer C, Terashi G, Verburgt J, Sarkar D, Aderinwale T, Wang X, Kihara D, Nakamura T, Hanazono Y, Gowthaman R, Guest JD, Yin R, Taherzadeh G, Pierce BG, Barradas-Bautista D, Cao Z, Cavallo L, Oliva R, Sun Y, Zhu S, Shen Y, Park T, Woo H, Yang J, Kwon S, Won J, Seok C, Kiyota Y, Kobayashi S, Harada Y, Takeda-Shitaka M, Kundrotas PJ, Singh A, Vakser IA, Dapkūnas J, Olechnovič K, Venclovas Č, Duan R, Qiu L, Xu X, Zhang S, Zou X, and Wodak SJ

Subjects
Binding Sites, Molecular Docking Simulation, Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Computational Biology methods, Models, Molecular, Proteins chemistry, Proteins metabolism, Software
Abstract

We present the results for CAPRI Round 50, the fourth joint CASP-CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round comprised a total of twelve targets, including six dimers, three trimers, and three higher-order oligomers. Four of these were easy targets, for which good structural templates were available either for the full assembly, or for the main interfaces (of the higher-order oligomers). Eight were difficult targets for which only distantly related templates were found for the individual subunits. Twenty-five CAPRI groups including eight automatic servers submitted ~1250 models per target. Twenty groups including six servers participated in the CAPRI scoring challenge submitted ~190 models per target. The accuracy of the predicted models was evaluated using the classical CAPRI criteria. The prediction performance was measured by a weighted scoring scheme that takes into account the number of models of acceptable quality or higher submitted by each group as part of their five top-ranking models. Compared to the previous CASP-CAPRI challenge, top performing groups submitted such models for a larger fraction (70-75%) of the targets in this Round, but fewer of these models were of high accuracy. Scorer groups achieved stronger performance with more groups submitting correct models for 70-80% of the targets or achieving high accuracy predictions. Servers performed less well in general, except for the MDOCKPP and LZERD servers, who performed on par with human groups. In addition to these results, major advances in methodology are discussed, providing an informative overview of where the prediction of protein assemblies currently stands., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Integration of Data from Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation Databases Highlights Concentration and Dosage Sensitivity of LLPS Drivers.

Author

Farahi N, Lazar T, Wodak SJ, Tompa P, and Pancsa R

Subjects
Databases, Factual, Humans, Molecular Sequence Annotation, Organelles, Proteome metabolism, Gene Dosage, Genes, Phase Transition, Proteins chemistry
Abstract

Liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) is a molecular process that leads to the formation of membraneless organelles, representing functionally specialized liquid-like cellular condensates formed by proteins and nucleic acids. Integrating the data on LLPS-associated proteins from dedicated databases revealed only modest agreement between them and yielded a high-confidence dataset of 89 human LLPS drivers. Analysis of the supporting evidence for our dataset uncovered a systematic and potentially concerning difference between protein concentrations used in a good fraction of the in vitro LLPS experiments, a key parameter that governs the phase behavior, and the proteomics-derived cellular abundance levels of the corresponding proteins. Closer scrutiny of the underlying experimental data enabled us to offer a sound rationale for this systematic difference, which draws on our current understanding of the cellular organization of the proteome and the LLPS process. In support of this rationale, we find that genes coding for our human LLPS drivers tend to be dosage-sensitive, suggesting that their cellular availability is tightly regulated to preserve their functional role in direct or indirect relation to condensate formation. Our analysis offers guideposts for increasing agreement between in vitro and in vivo studies, probing the roles of proteins in LLPS.

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Modeling protein-protein, protein-peptide, and protein-oligosaccharide complexes: CAPRI 7th edition.

Author

Lensink MF, Nadzirin N, Velankar S, and Wodak SJ

Subjects
Amino Acid Sequence, Binding Sites, Humans, Ligands, Oligosaccharides metabolism, Peptides metabolism, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, alpha-Helical, Protein Conformation, beta-Strand, Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs, Protein Interaction Mapping, Proteins metabolism, Research Design, Structural Homology, Protein, Molecular Docking Simulation, Oligosaccharides chemistry, Peptides chemistry, Proteins chemistry, Software
Abstract

We present the seventh report on the performance of methods for predicting the atomic resolution structures of protein complexes offered as targets to the community-wide initiative on the Critical Assessment of Predicted Interactions. Performance was evaluated on the basis of 36 114 models of protein complexes submitted by 57 groups-including 13 automatic servers-in prediction rounds held during the years 2016 to 2019 for eight protein-protein, three protein-peptide, and five protein-oligosaccharide targets with different length ligands. Six of the protein-protein targets represented challenging hetero-complexes, due to factors such as availability of distantly related templates for the individual subunits, or for the full complex, inter-domain flexibility, conformational adjustments at the binding region, or the multi-component nature of the complex. The main challenge for the protein-peptide and protein-oligosaccharide complexes was to accurately model the ligand conformation and its interactions at the interface. Encouragingly, models of acceptable quality, or better, were obtained for a total of six protein-protein complexes, which included four of the challenging hetero-complexes and a homo-decamer. But fewer of these targets were predicted with medium or higher accuracy. High accuracy models were obtained for two of the three protein-peptide targets, and for one of the protein-oligosaccharide targets. The remaining protein-sugar targets were predicted with medium accuracy. Our analysis indicates that progress in predicting increasingly challenging and diverse types of targets is due to closer integration of template-based modeling techniques with docking, scoring, and model refinement procedures, and to significant incremental improvements in the underlying methodologies., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. Interplay of self-association and conformational flexibility in regulating protein function.

Author

Garton M, MacKinnon SS, Malevanets A, and Wodak SJ

Subjects
Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Allosteric Regulation, Bacterial Proteins chemistry, Protein Conformation
Abstract

Many functional roles have been attributed to homodimers, the most common mode of protein self-association, notably in the regulation of enzymes, ion channels, transporters and transcription factors. Here we review findings that offer new insights into the different roles conformational flexibility plays in regulating homodimer function. Intertwined homodimers of two-domain proteins and their related family members display significant conformational flexibility, which translates into concerted motion between structural domains. This flexibility enables the corresponding proteins to regulate function across family members by modulating the spatial positions of key recognition surfaces of individual domains, to either maintain subunit interfaces, alter them or break them altogether, leading to a variety of functional consequences. Many proteins may exist as monomers but carry out their biological function as homodimers or higher-order oligomers. We present early evidence that in such systems homodimer formation primes the protein for its functional role. It does so by inducing elevated mobility in protein regions corresponding to the binding epitopes of functionally important ligands. In some systems this process acts as an allosteric response elicited by the self-association reaction itself. Our analysis furthermore suggests that the induced extra mobility likely facilitates ligand binding through the mechanism of conformational selection.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Allostery and molecular machines'., (© 2018 The Author(s).)

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. The challenge of modeling protein assemblies: the CASP12-CAPRI experiment.

Author

Lensink MF, Velankar S, Baek M, Heo L, Seok C, and Wodak SJ

Subjects
Algorithms, Humans, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Computational Biology methods, Databases, Protein, Models, Molecular, Protein Conformation, Protein Interaction Mapping methods, Protein Multimerization, Proteins chemistry
Abstract

We present the quality assessment of 5613 models submitted by predictor groups from both CAPRI and CASP for the total of 15 most tractable targets from the second joint CASP-CAPRI protein assembly prediction experiment. These targets comprised 12 homo-oligomers and 3 hetero-complexes. The bulk of the analysis focuses on 10 targets (of CAPRI Round 37), which included all 3 hetero-complexes, and whose protein chains or the full assembly could be readily modeled from structural templates in the PDB. On average, 28 CAPRI groups and 10 CASP groups (including automatic servers), submitted models for each of these 10 targets. Additionally, about 16 groups participated in the CAPRI scoring experiments. A range of acceptable to high quality models were obtained for 6 of the 10 Round 37 targets, for which templates were available for the full assembly. Poorer results were achieved for the remaining targets due to the lower quality of the templates available for the full complex or the individual protein chains, highlighting the unmet challenge of modeling the structural adjustments of the protein components that occur upon binding or which must be accounted for in template-based modeling. On the other hand, our analysis indicated that residues in binding interfaces were correctly predicted in a sizable fraction of otherwise poorly modeled assemblies and this with higher accuracy than published methods that do not use information on the binding partner. Lastly, the strengths and weaknesses of the assessment methods are evaluated and improvements suggested., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results