Here, we describe two freely available web servers for molecular docking. The PatchDock method performs structure prediction of protein–protein and protein–small molecule complexes. The SymmDock method predicts the structure of a homomultimer with cyclic symmetry given the structure of the monomeric unit. The inputs to the servers are either protein PDB codes or uploaded protein structures. The services are available at . The methods behind the servers are very efficient, allowing large-scale docking experiments.

The docking field has come of age. The time is ripe to present the principles of docking, reviewing the current state of the field. Two reasons are largely responsible for the maturity of the computational docking area. First, the early optimism that the very presence of the "correct" native conformation within the list of predicted docked conformations signals a near solution to the docking problem, has been replaced by the stark realization of the extreme difficulty of the next scoring/ranking step. Second, in the last couple of years more realistic approaches to handling molecular flexibility in docking schemes have emerged. As in folding, these derive from concepts abstracted from statistical mechanics, namely, populations. Docking and folding are interrelated. From the purely physical standpoint, binding and folding are analogous processes, with similar underlying principles. Computationally, the tools developed for docking will be tremendously useful for folding. For large, multidomain proteins, domain docking is probably the only rational way, mimicking the hierarchical nature of protein folding. The complexity of the problem is huge. Here we divide the computational docking problem into its two separate components. As in folding, solving the docking problem involves efficient search (and matching) algorithms, which cover the relevant conformational space, and selective scoring functions, which are both efficient and effectively discriminate between native and non-native solutions. It is universally recognized that docking of drugs is immensely important. However, protein-protein docking is equally so, relating to recognition, cellular pathways, and macromolecular assemblies. Proteins function when they are bound to other molecules. Consequently, we present the review from both the computational and the biological points of view. Although large, it covers only partially the extensive body of literature, relating to small (drug) and to large protein-protein molecule docking, to rigid and to flexible. Unfortunately, when reviewing these, a major difficulty in assessing the results is the non-uniformity in the formats in which they are presented in the literature. Consequently, we further propose a way to rectify it here.

Here, we present FireDock, an efficient method for the refinement and rescoring of rigid-body docking solutions. The refinement process consists of two main steps: (1) rearrangement of the interface side-chains and (2) adjustment of the relative orientation of the molecules. Our method accounts for the observation that most interface residues that are important in recognition and binding do not change their conformation significantly upon complexation. Allowing full side-chain flexibility, a common procedure in refinement methods, often causes excessive conformational changes. These changes may distort preformed structural signatures, which have been shown to be important for binding recognition. Here, we restrict side-chain movements, and thus manage to reduce the false-positive rate noticeably. In the later stages of our procedure (orientation adjustments and scoring), we smooth the atomic radii. This allows for the minor backbone and side-chain movements and increases the sensitivity of our algorithm. FireDock succeeds in ranking a near-native structure within the top 15 predictions for 83% of the 30 enzyme-inhibitor test cases, and for 78% of the 18 semiunbound antibody-antigen complexes. Our refinement procedure significantly improves the ranking of the rigid-body PatchDock algorithm for these cases. The FireDock program is fully automated. In particular, to our knowledge, FireDock's prediction results are comparable to current state-of-the-art refinement methods while its running time is significantly lower. The method is available at http://bioinfo3d.cs.tau.ac.il/FireDock/.

Polar residue hot spots have been observed at protein-protein binding sites. Here we show that hot spots occur predominantly at the interfaces of macromolecular complexes, distinguishing binding sites from the remainder of the surface. Consequently, hot spots can be used to define binding epitopes. We further show a correspondence between energy hot spots and structurally conserved residues. The number of structurally conserved residues, particularly of high ranking energy hot spots, increases with the binding site contact size. This finding may suggest that effectively dispersing hot spots within a large contact area, rather than compactly clustering them, may be a strategy to sustain essential key interactions while still allowing certain protein flexibility at the interface. Thus, most conserved polar residues at the binding interfaces confer rigidity to minimize the entropic cost on binding, whereas surrounding residues form a flexible cushion. Furthermore, our finding that similar residue hot spots occur across different protein families suggests that affinity and specificity are not necessarily coupled: higher affinity does not directly imply greater specificity. Conservation of Trp on the protein surface indicates a highly likely binding site. To a lesser extent, conservation of Phe and Met also imply a binding site. For all three residues, there is a significant conservation in binding sites, whereas there is no conservation on the exposed surface. A hybrid strategy, mapping sequence alignment onto a single structure illustrates the possibility of binding site identification around these three residues.protein-protein interfaces ͉ hot spots ͉ molecular recognition ͉ binding site prediction ͉ residue conservation R inge (1) has raised the question ''what makes a binding site a binding site?'' Many studies have addressed this intriguing and vastly important problem. Being able to a priori predict binding sites would both limit the conformational search in drug design, facilitate the prediction of protein-protein interactions (2), and may provide leads to binding site design.A number of studies have examined the attributes of proteinbinding sites (3-5). Although binding sites on enzyme surfaces typically consist of a concave cleft shape (6, 7) and similarly small ligand binding sites on receptor surfaces (8), this is not the case for the larger protein-protein complexes (9-12). Enzyme-binding sites were shown to frequently be the largest cavities on the enzyme surface (6, 7). On the other hand, the shape of dimer-binding sites is usually quite flat (9) and practically indistinguishable from other patches on the protein surface. Native binding sites do not yield the largest possible interfaces between two protein molecules. A docking study has shown that nonnative interfaces can be larger, and bury a larger extent of total or nonpolar surface areas (13). A similar observation has been made for the number of salt bridges or hydrogen bonds (13,14). Hence, although interfaces are frequently largely hydrophobic ...