No abstract

Protein–protein and protein–DNA/RNA interactions play a fundamental role in a variety of biological processes. Determining the complex structures of these interactions is valuable, in which molecular docking has played an important role. To automatically make use of the binding information from the PDB in docking, here we have presented HDOCK, a novel web server of our hybrid docking algorithm of template-based modeling and free docking, in which cases with misleading templates can be rescued by the free docking protocol. The server supports protein–protein and protein–DNA/RNA docking and accepts both sequence and structure inputs for proteins. The docking process is fast and consumes about 10–20 min for a docking run. Tested on the cases with weakly homologous complexes of <30% sequence identity from five docking benchmarks, the HDOCK pipeline tied with template-based modeling on the protein–protein and protein–DNA benchmarks and performed better than template-based modeling on the three protein–RNA benchmarks when the top 10 predictions were considered. The performance of HDOCK became better when more predictions were considered. Combining the results of HDOCK and template-based modeling by ranking first of the template-based model further improved the predictive power of the server. The HDOCK web server is available at http://hdock.phys.hust.edu.cn/.

One approach to incorporate protein flexibility in molecular docking is the use of an ensemble consisting of multiple protein structures. Sequentially docking each ligand into a large number of protein structures is computationally too expensive to allow large-scale database screening. It is challenging to achieve a good balance between docking accuracy and computational efficiency. In this work, we have developed a fast, novel docking algorithm utilizing multiple protein structures, referred to as ensemble docking, to account for protein structural variations. The algorithm can simultaneously dock a ligand into an ensemble of protein structures and automatically select an optimal protein structure that best fits the ligand by optimizing both ligand coordinates and the conformational variable m, where m represents the m-th structure in the protein ensemble. The docking algorithm was validated on 10 protein ensembles containing 105 crystal structures and 87 ligands in terms of binding mode and energy score predictions. A success rate of 93% was obtained with the criterion of root-mean-square deviation <2.5 A if the top five orientations for each ligand were considered, comparable to that of sequential docking in which scores for individual docking are merged into one list by re-ranking, and significantly better than that of single rigid-receptor docking (75% on average). Similar trends were also observed in binding score predictions and enrichment tests of virtual database screening. The ensemble docking algorithm is computationally efficient, with a computational time comparable to that for docking a ligand into a single protein structure. In contrast, the computational time for the sequential docking method increases linearly with the number of protein structures in the ensemble. The algorithm was further evaluated using a more realistic ensemble in which the corresponding bound protein structures of inhibitors were excluded. The results show that ensemble docking successfully predicts the binding modes of the inhibitors, and discriminates the inhibitors from a set of noninhibitors with similar chemical properties. Although multiple experimental structures were used in the present work, our algorithm can be easily applied to multiple protein conformations generated by computational methods, and helps improve the efficiency of other existing multiple protein structure(MPS)-based methods to accommodate protein flexibility.

The scoring function is one of the most important components in structure-based drug design. Despite considerable success, accurate and rapid prediction of protein-ligand interactions is still a challenge in molecular docking. In this perspective, we have reviewed three basic types of scoring functions (force-field, empirical, and knowledge-based) and the consensus scoring technique that are used for protein-ligand docking. The commonly-used assessment criteria and publicly available protein-ligand databases for performance evaluation of the scoring functions have also been presented and discussed. We end with a discussion of the challenges faced by existing scoring functions and possible future directions for developing improved scoring functions.

Using an efficient iterative method, we have developed a distance-dependent knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-protein interactions. The function, referred to as ITScore-PP, was derived using the crystal structures of a training set of 851 protein-protein dimeric complexes containing true biological interfaces. The key idea of the iterative method for deriving ITScore-PP is to improve the interatomic pair potentials by iteration, until the pair potentials can distinguish true binding modes from decoy modes for the protein-protein complexes in the training set. The iterative method circumvents the challenging reference state problem in deriving knowledge-based potentials. The derived scoring function was used to evaluate the ligand orientations generated by ZDOCK 2.1 and the native ligand structures on a diverse set of 91 protein-protein complexes. For the bound test cases, ITScore-PP yielded a success rate of 98.9% if the top 10 ranked orientations were considered. For the more realistic unbound test cases, the corresponding success rate was 40.7%. Furthermore, for faster orientational sampling purpose, several residue-level knowledge-based scoring functions were also derived following the similar iterative procedure. Among them, the scoring function that uses the side-chain center of mass (SCM) to represent a residue, referred to as ITScore-PP(SCM), showed the best performance and yielded success rates of 71.4% and 30.8% for the bound and unbound cases, respectively, when the top 10 orientations were considered. ITScore-PP was further tested using two other published protein-protein docking decoy sets, the ZDOCK decoy set and the RosettaDock decoy set. In addition to binding mode prediction, the binding scores predicted by ITScore-PP also correlated well with the experimentally determined binding affinities, yielding a correlation coefficient of R = 0.71 on a test set of 74 protein-protein complexes with known affinities. ITScore-PP is computationally efficient. The average run time for ITScore-PP was about 0.03 second per orientation (including optimization) on a personal computer with 3.2 GHz Pentium IV CPU and 3.0 GB RAM. The computational speed of ITScore-PP(SCM) is about an order of magnitude faster than that of ITScore-PP. ITScore-PP and/or ITScore-PP(SCM) can be combined with efficient protein docking software to study protein-protein recognition.