The CAPRI and CASP prediction experiments have demonstrated the power of community wide tests of methodology in assessing the current state of the art and spurring progress in the very challenging areas of protein docking and structure prediction. We sought to bring the power of community wide experiments to bear on a very challenging protein design problem that provides a complementary but equally fundamental test of current understanding of protein-binding thermodynamics. We have generated a number of designed protein-protein interfaces with very favorable computed binding energies but which do not appear to be formed in experiments, suggesting there may be important physical chemistry missing in the energy calculations. 28 research groups took up the challenge of determining what is missing: we provided structures of 87 designed complexes and 120 naturally occurring complexes and asked participants to identify energetic contributions and/or structural features that distinguish between the two sets. The community found that electrostatics and solvation terms partially distinguish the designs from the natural complexes, largely due to the non-polar character of the designed interactions. Beyond this polarity difference, the community found that the designed binding surfaces were on average structurally less embedded in the designed monomers, suggesting that backbone conformational rigidity at the designed surface is important for realization of the designed function. These results can be used to improve computational design strategies, but there is still much to be learned; for example, one designed complex, which does form in experiments, was classified by all metrics as a non-binder.

Atomistic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations generate a wealth of information related to the dynamics of proteins. If properly analyzed, this information can lead to new insights regarding protein function and assist wet-lab experiments. Aiming to identify interactions between individual amino acid residues and the role played by each in the context of MD simulations, we present a stand-alone software called gRINN (get Residue Interaction eNergies and Networks). gRINN features graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and a command-line interface for generating and analyzing pairwise residue interaction energies and energy correlations from protein MD simulation trajectories. gRINN utilizes the features of NAMD or GROMACS MD simulation packages and automatizes the steps necessary to extract residue-residue interaction energies from user-supplied simulation trajectories, greatly simplifying the analysis for the end-user. A GUI, including an embedded molecular viewer, is provided for visualization of interaction energy time-series, distributions, an interaction energy matrix, interaction energy correlations and a residue correlation matrix. gRINN additionally offers construction and analysis of Protein Energy Networks, providing residue-based metrics such as degrees, betweenness-centralities, closeness centralities as well as shortest path analysis. gRINN is free and open to all users without login requirement at http://grinn.readthedocs.io.

DNABINDPROT is designed to predict DNA-binding residues, based on the fluctuations of residues in high-frequency modes by the Gaussian network model. The residue pairs that display high mean-square distance fluctuations are analyzed with respect to DNA binding, which are then filtered with their evolutionary conservation profiles and ranked according to their DNA-binding propensities. If the analyses are based on the exact outcome of fluctuations in the highest mode, using a conservation threshold of 5, the results have a sensitivity, specificity, precision and accuracy of 9.3%, 90.5%, 18.1% and 78.6%, respectively, on a dataset of 36 unbound–bound protein structure pairs. These values increase up to 24.3%, 93.4%, 45.3% and 83.3% for the respective cases, when the neighboring two residues are considered. The relatively low sensitivity appears with the identified residues being selective and susceptible more for the binding core residues rather than all DNA-binding residues. The predicted residues that are not tagged as DNA-binding residues are those whose fluctuations are coupled with DNA-binding sites. They are in close proximity as well as plausible for other functional residues, such as ligand and protein–protein interaction sites. DNABINDPROT is free and open to all users without login requirement available at: http://www.prc.boun.edu.tr/appserv/prc/dnabindprot/.

It is of significant interest to understand how proteins interact, which holds the key phenomenon in biological functions. Using dynamic fluctuations in high frequency modes, we show that the Gaussian Network Model (GNM) predicts hot spot residues with success rates ranging between S 8–58%, C 84–95%, P 5–19% and A 81–92% on unbound structures and S 8–51%, C 97–99%, P 14–50%, A 94–97% on complex structures for sensitivity, specificity, precision and accuracy, respectively. High specificity and accuracy rates with a single property on unbound protein structures suggest that hot spots are predefined in the dynamics of unbound structures and forming the binding core of interfaces, whereas the prediction of other functional residues with similar dynamic behavior explains the lower precision values. The latter is demonstrated with the case studies; ubiquitin, hen egg-white lysozyme and M2 proton channel. The dynamic fluctuations suggest a pseudo network of residues with high frequency fluctuations, which could be plausible for the mechanism of biological interactions and allosteric regulation.