The scoring of poses in protein-protein docking: current capabilities and future directions
© Moal et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 18 June 2013
Accepted: 25 September 2013
Published: 1 October 2013
Protein-protein docking, which aims to predict the structure of a protein-protein complex from its unbound components, remains an unresolved challenge in structural bioinformatics. An important step is the ranking of docked poses using a scoring function, for which many methods have been developed. There is a need to explore the differences and commonalities of these methods with each other, as well as with functions developed in the fields of molecular dynamics and homology modelling.
We present an evaluation of 115 scoring functions on an unbound docking decoy benchmark covering 118 complexes for which a near-native solution can be found, yielding top 10 success rates of up to 58%. Hierarchical clustering is performed, so as to group together functions which identify near-natives in similar subsets of complexes. Three set theoretic approaches are used to identify pairs of scoring functions capable of correctly scoring different complexes. This shows that functions in different clusters capture different aspects of binding and are likely to work together synergistically.
All functions designed specifically for docking perform well, indicating that functions are transferable between sampling methods. We also identify promising methods from the field of homology modelling. Further, differential success rates by docking difficulty and solution quality suggest a need for flexibility-dependent scoring. Investigating pairs of scoring functions, the set theoretic measures identify known scoring strategies as well as a number of novel approaches, indicating promising augmentations of traditional scoring methods. Such augmentation and parameter combination strategies are discussed in the context of the learning-to-rank paradigm.
Protein-protein interactions are elemental to almost all biological processes. The atomic-resolution annotation of protein interaction networks can give insights into the kinetics [1-5], thermodynamics [6-10] and organisation [11-13] of the complex systems they constitute, as well as human disease [14, 15]. The 3D structures of a protein-protein complex can be used to estimate the effect of mutations [16-21], and thus for protein design [22-29] and determining the functional consequences of mutations associated with diseases (for instance ). Further, protein-protein interactions are receiving considerable attention as targets for rational drug design [31-33] and as therapeutic agents [34-37], both endeavours in which structural information is invaluable. However, in spite of this importance, the rate at which the structures of protein complexes are being solved experimentally lags far behind the rate at which interactions are being discovered. As such, there is a pressing need to fill this ever-growing gap with models derived through computational means such as docking [38-45] and post-docking analysis [46, 47].
Despite over three decades of investigations, protein-protein docking remains an unsolved problem. Out of the two critical challenges in docking, the first is sampling, especially in cases with large conformational flexibility. The second, scoring, is the topic of this paper, and is concerned with identifying the correct docking conformations. Scoring attempts to identify the lowest energy poses, and is thus related to the problem of predicting benchmarks of experimental ΔG and ΔΔG values [48, 49], an area in which further work is required [50, 51]. This is usually achieved by ranking the structures that are generated by docking algorithms, and a number of different approaches have been applied to this problem. These range from composite scoring functions using a linear combination of terms, usually models of the underlying physical phenomena at play [52-65], to methods derived from the statistics of structural databases [63, 66-70], docking decoys [71-75], experimental binding energies , methods based on interface composition and geometry [77-80] or complementarity [81-90], methods based on machine learning [91-97], and methods which account for the characteristics of the binding funnel [98-102]. These approaches span a range of resolution from residue-level to atomic. Further, potentials derived from the field of homology modelling can show promise when applied to interactions [103-105], yet many such methods have not yet had their ability to rank docked structures ascertained.
A large-scale evaluation of the ability of 115 different metrics to rank docked poses using a set of docking decoys generated from the protein-protein docking Benchmark 4.0 , using the SwarmDock algorithm [107-109], is presented here. These metrics include docking scores, their constituent terms, molecular mechanics energy functions and methods developed by the protein folding community. We also analyse the union, symmetric difference and relative complement between sets of complexes identified by different methods so as to give an indication of the amount of mutual information embedded in pairs of scoring functions, and the potential for different methods to be combined together synergistically. The results of these investigations give an indication of which approaches are most successful and suggest a number of promising future directions for the improvement of scoring functions.
Results and discussion
Both docking and folding potentials can rank docked poses
The results harbour a number of surprises. For instance, the fine-grain weighted RosettaDock scoring function performs comparably to the coarse-grain Rosetta environment potential, CG_ENV , and the MixRank strategy does not perform as well as its constituent S3DC potential . However, perhaps the greatest surprise is the capability for some of the folding potentials to identify near-native solutions. Two methods in particular stand out. The first is the OPUS_PSP potential, a side-chain only orientation-dependent statistical contact potential in which residues are decomposed into rigid and planar chemical moieties . It would be intriguing to see the performance of this potential after training it as an intermolecular potential with crystal structures or near-native docked solution as observations, and/or with docking decoys as the reference state, should a sufficient number of complexes become available. The second is MJ3h, a coarse-grain statistical contact potential which has been corrected for water-to-protein transfer energy . This very simple potential outperforms many more complex scoring functions and, remarkably, has a good ability to distinguish the high quality solutions from other near-native poses.
Difficulty and quality dependent efficacy suggests a need for case-dependent scoring functions
To ascertain whether different scoring methods have different performances depending on difficulty, the analysis was repeated using only the easier cases, the rigid-body category of the Benchmark 4.0, and the harder cases. As the medium and difficult categories contain fewer complexes, and near-native solutions were found less frequently, they are considered together. The results for the rigid-body cases are shown in Additional file 1: Figures S3, S4 and S5, with high-performing methods similar to those for the whole benchmark. As expected, docking of these cases was more successful than for the flexible cases, with top 1, top 10 and top 100 acceptable or better success rates of up 30%, 63% and 93% of cases where such a solution is available. For the flexible cases, with results shown in Additional file 1: Figures S6, S7 and S8, only up to 4 complexes were top ranked by any method, too few to reliably distinguish between the different scores. However, for the top 10 and top 100 solutions, success rates of up to 36% and 86% could be achieved. It can be seen that for these complexes, the highest performing methods are highly enriched with coarse-grained scoring functions. This is consistent with the difficulty in correctly predicting the specific atomic contacts for the most flexible cases. While the use of smoothed and coarse-grained functions for the compensation of conformational uncertainty is a common docking strategy [55, 61, 62, 67, 115], the differential scoring performances shown here suggest a role for flexibility-dependent scoring functions, that may be used in conjunction with methods for predicting flexibility [116-120].
In order to further investigate how the ability to score a docked pose depends on the quality of the pose, we investigated the conditional probability of finding a structure of at least a given quality or better given that a solution of at least that quality exists. While an insufficient number of high quality solutions were generated to derive meaningful statistics, this was undertaken for the medium and acceptable quality for all 122 methods, with the results given in Additional file 1: Table S2. When defining a solution as found if it appears in the top 10, 66% of the methods had a greater conditional probability of finding a medium or better solution than an acceptable or better (76/115), indicating a slightly higher success rate for the higher quality solutions. However, the methods evaluated here are biased towards coarse-grain models. When evaluating only the models prefixed with ‘AP_’ , all of which are at or near atomic resolution, this figure rises to 71% (15/21), demonstrating that the high-resolution scoring functions preferentially identify the higher quality solutions. For the scoring functions prefixed with ‘CP_’ , all of which are at residue resolution, the figure is 64% (34/53), indicating a lesser preferential ability to identify the higher quality solutions. These results further suggest that different scoring strategies are best employed for different docking difficulties.
Differential performance identifies existing and novel scoring strategies
Here we have evaluated 115 different scoring functions using a recent docking benchmark , yielding acceptable or better solutions in the top 10 for up to 58% of cases. All of the docking-specific scoring functions evaluated performed well, vindicating a range of approaches, including pair potentials trained with docking decoys [72-75, 110], composite scoring functions [54, 57-59, 61, 67, 112], and a novel approach based on the identification of common motifs in interacting residue networks . Interestingly, some methods taken from the field of homology modelling also performed exceptionally well. In particular, two methods stood out. The first is a simple residue contact potential , which can be used to quickly evaluate thousands of structures , and thus would be suitable for the initial filtering of poses determined with algorithms that generated a large initial set of decoys, such as Fourier transform docking . The second is a novel statistical potential , with accuracy that may be further enhanced if reparameterised as an intermolecular potential or using docking decoys.
We have only considered complexes for which SwarmDock could generate near-native poses. Nevertheless, for at least a third of the Benchmark 4.0, acceptable solutions were generated but not identified by any single scoring function on its own. However, near-native solutions missed by one method were often found by different methods. For instance some functions, particularly the coarse-grained, were better at identifying correct poses for the more difficult cases and where the quality of the docked solutions was lower. On the other hand, atomic potentials were superior for the less flexible cases and higher quality solution. This indicates that flexibility prediction could be used for the selection of the most appropriate scoring functions on a case-by-case basis, or incorporated into the scoring scheme. To investigate which potentials could be combined together, we identified pairs of scoring functions capable of correctly identifying near-natives in different subsets of the benchmark. To achieve this, we used three different set operators, which give complementary pictures of the data. This analysis identified a number of general strategies, such as the combination of amino acid propensities with hydrophobic burial, statistical potentials with electrostatics, and atomic-resolution functions with residue-level potentials. It also allowed the identification of individual methods which appear to capture aspects missed by traditional scoring functions, such as the SPIDER algorithm and the Rosetta environment potential. As SPIDER captures multi-body interactions, and these have not received significant attention in the field of protein-protein docking, this indicates computational characterisation of cooperative interactions across the interface should be a focus of future research. Finally, these methods also identify specific combinations of terms which may be promising, such as merging the CP_TSC potentials with the AP_DARS potential. For the scoring functions evaluated here, SwarmDock decoys were used. As the scoring functions are easily available, other groups could extend the analysis using structures generated with their own algorithms. However, the fact that methods optimised using different decoys sets still perform well on these structures indicates that scoring functions can be transferred from one docking algorithm to another. Subsequently, the insights garnered here should still apply.
Although this work suggests promising combinations of terms, we have not yet considered how these terms can be combined. A common approach is to take them in linear combination. This makes sense as a first approximation when the terms consist of energy models of physical phenomena, due to the additivity of thermodynamic cycles. However when physical phenomena are coupled, or when features are used that are not rooted in physical phenomena, non-linear relationships between the terms and their utility in ranking arise. Further, it would be desirable to account for heterogeneous data sources, such as predicted flexibility measures as suggested here, but also terms such as sequence conservation data, cluster sizes or agreement with experimental data, or polynominal features such as complex type or, if attempting to merge docking solutions from different algorithms, the provenance of each pose. In these cases, flexible machine learning algorithms capable of inferring these relationships can be used to tailor scoring functions to the structures produced by the sampling methods , and indeed examples of this approach can be found in the literature [91-97]. Surprisingly, however, all of these examples have treated the ranking of docked poses not as a ranking problem but as a classification problem, resulting in two issues. Firstly, they are narrow in terms of the models that they use. For instance, when ranking is undertaken in the pointwise approach, it can be reformulated as a classification, regression or ordinal classification problem [125-128]. Similarly a pairwise ranking approach can be formulated as pairwise classification or pairwise regression [129-136], for instance where a model is trained on restraints derived from the fact that acceptable docking poses are superior to incorrect poses, medium are superior to acceptable and incorrect poses, and so on. Further, listwise ranking methods could be employed where, instead of viewing each pose independently and assigning it a score, and instead of comparing pairs of poses to determine which is superior, the whole list is ranked simultaneously as an inseparable set [137-142]. The exploration of how docking ranking performs when reformulated along these lines remains to be seen. The second issue is that current machine learning based docking scoring methods do not directly address the needs of those who wish to rank docked solutions. For instance, they fail to distinguish high quality solutions from those that are merely acceptable. Additionally, for the purpose of docking, the difference between a top ranked pose and a pose ranked 20th is much greater than the difference between poses ranked 101st and 120th, and this should be reflected in the associated loss function. We suggest that terms such as those explored in this work should be combined in a way which more closely resembles how search engines rank documents. Just as page ranking strives to order lists of documents according to relevance with the most relevant at the top, docking strives to order poses according to their quality with the highest quality at the top. Similarly, just as only the first page of documents is generally of interest in web page ranking, only the top 10 or so docking poses are usually considered for further investigations. Machine-learned ranking has received considerable attention in recent years due to its importance to search engines, with fundamental developments spurred on by initiatives such as the 2009 Internet Mathematics contest, the $30,000 Yahoo! Learning to Rank Challenge  and the ICDM 2013 Expedia Challenge. We believe that such approaches, with loss functions based on measures such as the discounted cumulative gain, and constructed and validated with completely blind features selected within an outer leave-complex-out cross-validation wrapper, will considerably improve our future ability to identify correctly docked structures.
Generating and evaluating the docking decoys
Ideally, all the scoring functions would be evaluated on different docking decoy sets generated using a number of different methods. This would allow the evaluation of not just scoring functions, but of whole docking protocols/scoring function combinations . However, in order for the calculations to remain tractable, the consideration of increasing numbers of decoys would place a limit on the number of scoring functions which could be evaluated. For this reason, we have chosen to limit our evaluation to a large number of functions using a single decoy set generated using SwarmDock [107, 108], a flexible protein-protein docking algorithm which has shown one of the top predictive performances in CAPRI . SwarmDock uses normal modes to model conformational changes. It locates minima on the energy landscape using a hybrid global/local search algorithm, in which translational, orientational and normal coordinate space is simultaneously optimised. As this method produces relatively few structures, it allows us to evaluate a large number of different scoring methodologies. The decoys were generated using the SwarmDock server . Briefly, non-standard residues were reverted to their precursor amino acid, missing atoms were repaired, missing residue were modelled as alanine residues, atoms were reordered to ensure agreement with the standard PDB atom ordering, and the first location was selected for atoms with multiple location indicators. The algorithm was run using default parameters  on a set of 118 of the 176 complexes taken from the Benchmark 4.0 . Four of the Benchmark 4.0 complexes were omitted due to their large size and subsequent difficulties in evaluating a number of the scoring functions (1DE4, 1N2C, 2HMI and 2VIS). The remainder of the complexes were omitted because no solution of acceptable or better quality was generated. For each complex, around 500 decoys were generated. The decoys were scored using the 115 metrics outlined below. Some of the metrics were calculated directly from the structures. For others, the receptor, ligand and complex were evaluated separately, and the final score calculated as E_complex-(E_receptor + E_ligand). For each metric, the decoys were reranked and clustered at 3Å resolution in ascending order of energy as described previously [107, 108]. For three of the metrics, NHB, SIPPER and PROPNSTS, a positive value corresponds to the most promising solutions, so these were clustered in descending order. For the ranked list of clusters, all but the first (lowest energy) member of each cluster was discarded, leaving a ranked list of structures. For these, the standard CAPRI docking quality measures were calculated: fraction of native contacts (fnat), interface RMSD (IRMSD) and ligand RMSD (LRMSD). These were used to classify the solutions as incorrect (fnat < 0.1 or (LRMSD > 10 Å and IRMSD > 4 Å)), acceptable ((fnat ≥ 0.3 and LRMSD > 5 Å and IRMSD > 2 Å) or ((fnat ≥ 0.1 and fnat < 0.3) and (LRMSD ≤ 10 Å or IRMSD ≤ 4 Å))), medium quality ((fnat ≥ 0.5 and LRMSD > 1 Å and IRMSD > 1 Å) or ((fnat ≥ 0.3 and fnat < 0.5) and (LRMSD ≤ 5 Å or IRMSD ≤ 2 Å))) or high quality (fnat ≥ 0.5 and (LRMSD ≤ 1 Å or IRMSD ≤ 1 Å)), in ascending order of accuracy, in accordance with the CAPRI criteria .
A summary of the scoring functions evaluated
The DECK potential, reimplemented based on the original source code.
An α-carbon potential.
A 6 bin distance-dependent centroid-centroid potential.
A 7 bin distance-dependent centroid-centroid potential.
A statistical intermolecular contact potential.
A docking contact potential.
A 2 bin docking potential.
Residue potentials that have been factorised into different energetic contributions (E_pair, E_local, E_ZS3DC, E_3DC and E_3D respectively). These are prefixed with either ‘CP_E’ for energies or ‘CP_Z’ for z-scores, and suffixed with ‘_CB’ for the β-carbon potential and ‘_MIN’ for the minimum inter-residue distance potential. The combination of these into the MixRank ranking strategy is also included. For this method, the 5 largest complexes failed to produce scores and are thus omitted.
The weighted intermolecular contact potential extracted from ΔΔG data, a preliminary model.
The unweighted intermolecular contact potential extracted from ΔΔG data, a preliminary model.
A number of residue-level contact potentials which have been used for protein folding studies. For these, the naming scheme and descriptions can be found elsewhere [123, 149]. Contact energy matrices were downloaded from the Potentials’R’Us server.
The DComplex potential, reimplementation based on original data file.
The dDFIRE potential.
The DFIRE 2.0 potential.
The first of two two-step docking potentials.
The second of two two-step docking potentials.
The standard DOPE potential.
The atomic contact energy desolvation score, calculated using FireDock .
The OPUS_PSP folding potential.
The geometric potential reported in Li and Liang: Geometric packing potential function for model selection in protein structure and protein-protein binding predictions, unpublished.
The DARS decoys-as-reference-state statistical potential.
The URS statistical potential.
The MFP statistical potential.
An atomic contact potential.
The distance-dependent calRW potential.
The orientation-dependent calRWplus potential.
The GOAP potential and its two constituent terms.
The PISA score.
The weighted intermolecular contact potential extracted from ΔΔG data.
The unweighted intermolecular contact potential extracted from ΔΔG data.
The ATTRACT scoring function, as calculated in PTools .
The PyDock scoring function and the electrostatics, van der Waals and desolvation terms it is composed from.
The general purpose, enzyme-inhibitor and antibody-antigen FireDock scores and the insideness concavity score and hydrogen-bonding, π-π, cation-π and aliphatic potentials they are composed from.
The SIPPER score and its amino-acid propensity and desolvation constituents.
The original ZRANK scoring function.
The reoptimised ZRANK scoring function.
Interface packing score.
Surface complementarity score.
The unweighted Rosetta energy, calculated using PyRosetta.
The optimised RosettaDock energy, calculated using PyRosetta.
The coarse-grain PyRosetta pair-potential, van der Waals, environment potential and β-potential.
The atomic-resolution PyRosetta hydrogen bonding potential, amino-acid propensity scores, attractive and repulsive van der Waals energies, pair potential and desolvation energy.
The total number of hydrogen bonds, calculated using PyRosetta.
The total CHARMM energy, electrostatic energy, SASA energy and van der Waals, as calculated using the enerCHARMM script in the MMTSB toolset.
The sub-graph mining based SPIDER score. As the SPIDER program only allowed scoring using a fixed receptor molecule, the unbound receptor conformation was used for this method, with a relaxed parameter set (dRMSD_CutOff = 1.0, intrCvrAbs_CutOff = 20, intrCvrPer_CutOff = 0.3, intrNumPat_CutOff = 10 and intrAveOcc_CutOff = 2).
The methods evaluated here have been developed through many hours of research in many laboratories around the world. The authors would like to extend their gratitude to all the researchers who have provided their scoring function via their published works, on their web pages and through personal contact. The research leading to these results has received funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA grant agreement PIEF-GA-2012-327899. This research has also been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science (BIO2010-22324) and Cancer Research UK.
- Schreiber G, Haran G, Zhou HX: Fundamental aspects of protein-protein association kinetics. Chem Rev. 2009, 109 (3): 839-860. 10.1021/cr800373w.Google Scholar
- Gabdoulline RR, Wade RC: Biomolecular diffusional association. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2002, 12 (2): 204-213. 10.1016/S0959-440X(02)00311-1.Google Scholar
- Elcock AH, Sept D, McCammon JA: Computer simulation of protein-protein interactions. J Phys Chem B. 2001, 105 (8): 1504-1518. 10.1021/jp003602d.Google Scholar
- Mereghetti P, Kokh D, McCammon JA, Wade RC: Diffusion and association processes in biological systems: theory, computation and experiment. BMC Biophys. 2011, 4: 2-10.1186/2046-1682-4-2.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Moal IH, Bates PA: Kinetic rate constant prediction supports the conformational selection mechanism of protein binding. PLOS Comput Biol. 2012, 8: e1002351-10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002351.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Vreven T, Hwang H, Pierce BG, Weng Z: Prediction of protein-protein binding free energies. Protein Sci. 2012, 21 (3): 396-404. 10.1002/pro.2027.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Moal IH, Agius R, Bates PA: Protein-protein binding affinity prediction on a diverse set of structures. Bioinformatics. 2011, 27 (21): 3002-3009. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr513.Google Scholar
- Tian F, Lv Y, Yang L: Structure-based prediction of protein-protein binding affinity with consideration of allosteric effect. Amino Acids. 2012, 43 (2): 531-543. 10.1007/s00726-011-1101-1.Google Scholar
- Audie J, Swanson J: Advances in the prediction of protein-peptide binding affinities: implications for peptide-based drug discovery. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2013, 81: 50-60. 10.1111/cbdd.12076.Google Scholar
- Zhou P, Wang C, Tian F, Ren Y, Yang C, Huang J: Biomacromolecular quantitative structure-activity relationship (BioQSAR): a proof-of-concept study on the modeling, prediction and interpretation of protein-protein binding affinity. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2013, 27: 67-78. 10.1007/s10822-012-9625-3.Google Scholar
- Bhardwaj N, Abyzov A, Clarke D, Shou C, Gerstein MB: Integration of protein motions with molecular networks reveals different mechanisms for permanent and transient interactions. Protein Sci. 2011, 20 (10): 1745-1754. 10.1002/pro.710.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Clarke D, Bhardwaj N, Gerstein MB: Novel insights through the integration of structural and functional genomics data with protein networks. J Struct Biol. 2012, 179 (3): 320-326. 10.1016/j.jsb.2012.02.001.Google Scholar
- Tuncbag N, Kar G, Gursoy A, Keskin O, Nussinov R: Towards inferring time dimensionality in protein-protein interaction networks by integrating structures: the p53 example. Mol Biosyst. 2009, 5 (12): 1770-1778. 10.1039/b905661k.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Wang X, Wei X, Thijssen B, Das J, Lipkin SM, Yu H: Three-dimensional reconstruction of protein networks provides insight into human genetic disease. Nat Biotechnol. 2012, 30 (2): 159-164. 10.1038/nbt.2106.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Zhong Q, Simonis N, Li QR, Charloteaux B, Heuze F, Klitgord N, Tam S, Yu H, Venkatesan K, Mou D, Swearingen V, Yildirim MA, Yan H, Dricot A, Szeto D, Lin C, Hao T, Fan C, Milstein S, Dupuy D, Brasseur R, Hill DE, Cusick ME, Vidal M: Edgetic perturbation models of human inherited disorders. Mol Syst Biol. 2009, 5: 321-PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Moretti R, Fleishman SJ, Agius R, Torchala M, Bates PA, Kastritis PL, Rodrigues JP, Trellet M, Bonvin AM, Cui M, Rooman M, Gillis D, Dehouck Y, Moal I, Romero-Durana M, Perez-Cano L, Pallara C, Jimenez B, Fernandez-Recio J, Flores S, Pacella M, Praneeth Kilambi K, Gray JJ, Popov P, Grudinin S, Esquivel-Rodriguez J, Kihara D, Zhao N, Korkin D, Zhu X, et al: Community-wide evaluation of methods for predicting the effect of mutations on protein-protein interactions. Proteins. 2013, doi: 10.1002/prot.24356Google Scholar
- Kamisetty H, Ramanathan A, Bailey-Kellogg C, Langmead CJ: Accounting for conformational entropy in predicting binding free energies of protein-protein interactions. Proteins. 2011, 79 (2): 444-462. 10.1002/prot.22894.Google Scholar
- Benedix A, Becker CM, de Groot BL, Caflisch A, Bockmann RA: Predicting free energy changes using structural ensembles. Nat Methods. 2009, 6: 3-4. 10.1038/nmeth0109-3.Google Scholar
- Brandsdal BO, Smalas AO: Evaluation of protein-protein association energies by free energy perturbation calculations. Protein Eng. 2000, 13 (4): 239-245. 10.1093/protein/13.4.239.Google Scholar
- Almlof M, Aqvist J, Smalas AO, Brandsdal BO: Probing the effect of point mutations at protein-protein interfaces with free energy calculations. Biophys J. 2006, 90 (2): 433-442. 10.1529/biophysj.105.073239.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Guerois R, Nielsen JE, Serrano L: Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. J Mol Biol. 2002, 320 (2): 369-387. 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00442-4.Google Scholar
- Kortemme T, Baker D: Computational design of protein-protein interactions. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2004, 8: 91-97. 10.1016/j.cbpa.2003.12.008.Google Scholar
- Chen TS, Keating AE: Designing specific protein-protein interactions using computation, experimental library screening, or integrated methods. Protein Sci. 2012, 21 (7): 949-963. 10.1002/pro.2096.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Baker D: Prediction and design of macromolecular structures and interactions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006, 361 (1467): 459-463. 10.1098/rstb.2005.1803.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lippow SM, Tidor B: Progress in computational protein design. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2007, 18 (4): 305-311. 10.1016/j.copbio.2007.04.009.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Fleishman SJ, Whitehead TA, Strauch EM, Corn JE, Qin S, Zhou HX, Mitchell JC, Demerdash ON, Takeda-Shitaka M, Terashi G, Moal IH, Li X, Bates PA, Zacharias M, Park H, Ko JS, Lee H, Seok C, Bourquard T, Bernauer J, Poupon A, Aze J, Soner S, Ovali SK, Ozbek P, Tal NB, Haliloglu T, Hwang H, Vreven T, Pierce BG, et al: Community-wide assessment of protein-interface modeling suggests improvements to design methodology. J Mol Biol. 2011, 414 (2): 289-302. 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.09.031.Google Scholar
- Mandell DJ, Kortemme T: Computer-aided design of functional protein interactions. Nat Chem Biol. 2009, 5 (11): 797-807. 10.1038/nchembio.251.Google Scholar
- Ahmad JN, Li J, Biedermannova L, Kuchar M, Sipova H, Semeradtova A, Cerny J, Petrokova H, Mikulecky P, Polinek J, Stanek O, Vondrasek J, Homola J, Maly J, Osicka R, Sebo P, Maly P: Novel high-affinity binders of human interferon gamma derived from albumin-binding domain of protein G. Proteins. 2012, 80 (3): 774-789. 10.1002/prot.23234.Google Scholar
- Sammond DW, Eletr ZM, Purbeck C, Kimple RJ, Siderovski DP, Kuhlman B: Structure-based protocol for identifying mutations that enhance protein-protein binding affinities. J Mol Biol. 2007, 371 (5): 1392-1404. 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.05.096.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Domene C, Illingworth CJ: Effects of point mutations in pVHL on the binding of HIF-1α. Proteins. 2012, 80 (3): 733-746. 10.1002/prot.23230.Google Scholar
- Metz A, Ciglia E, Gohlke H: Modulating protein-protein interactions: from structural determinants of binding to druggability prediction to application. Curr Pharm Des. 2012, 18 (30): 4630-4647. 10.2174/138161212802651553.Google Scholar
- Gonzalez-Ruiz D, Gohlke H: Targeting protein-protein interactions with small molecules: challenges and perspectives for computational binding epitope detection and ligand finding. Curr Med Chem. 2006, 13 (22): 2607-2625. 10.2174/092986706778201530.Google Scholar
- Nisius B, Sha F, Gohlke H: Structure-based computational analysis of protein binding sites for function and druggability prediction. J Biotechnol. 2012, 159 (3): 123-134. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.12.005.Google Scholar
- Zhou P, Wang C, Ren Y, Yang C, Tian F: Computational peptidology: a New and promising approach to therapeutic peptide design. Curr Med Chem. 2013, 20 (15): 1985-1996. 10.2174/0929867311320150005.Google Scholar
- Szymkowski DE: Creating the next generation of protein therapeutics through rational drug design. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel. 2005, 8 (5): 590-600.Google Scholar
- Hwang I, Park S: Computational design of protein therapeutics. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2008, 5 (2-3): e43-e48.Google Scholar
- Wanner J, Fry DC, Peng Z, Roberts J: Druggability assessment of protein-protein interfaces. Future Med Chem. 2011, 3 (16): 2021-2038. 10.4155/fmc.11.156.Google Scholar
- Kiel C, Serrano L: Structural data in synthetic biology approaches for studying general design principles of cellular signaling networks. Structure. 2012, 20 (11): 1806-1813. 10.1016/j.str.2012.10.002.Google Scholar
- Aloy P, Russell RB: Structural systems biology: modelling protein interactions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006, 7 (3): 188-197. 10.1038/nrm1859.Google Scholar
- Kiel C, Beltrao P, Serrano L: Analyzing protein interaction networks using structural information. Annu Rev Biochem. 2008, 77: 415-441. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.062706.133317.Google Scholar
- Stein A, Mosca R, Aloy P: Three-dimensional modeling of protein interactions and complexes is going ‘omics. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2011, 21 (2): 200-208. 10.1016/j.sbi.2011.01.005.Google Scholar
- Beltrao P, Kiel C, Serrano L: Structures in systems biology. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2007, 17 (3): 378-384. 10.1016/j.sbi.2007.05.005.Google Scholar
- Stein M, Gabdoulline RR, Wade RC: Bridging from molecular simulation to biochemical networks. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2007, 17 (2): 166-172. 10.1016/j.sbi.2007.03.014.Google Scholar
- Dell’Orco D: Fast predictions of thermodynamics and kinetics of protein-protein recognition from structures: from molecular design to systems biology. Mol Biosyst. 2009, 5 (4): 323-334. 10.1039/b821580d.Google Scholar
- Melquiond ASJ, Karaca E, Kastritis PL, Bonvin AMJJ: Next challenges in protein-protein docking: from proteome to interactome and beyond. WIREs Comput Mol Sci. 2012, 2 (4): 642-651. 10.1002/wcms.91.Google Scholar
- Zhou P, Tian F, Shang Z: 2D depiction of nonbonding interactions for protein complexes. J Comput Chem. 2009, 30 (6): 940-951. 10.1002/jcc.21109.Google Scholar
- Zhou P, Shang Z: 2D molecular graphics: a flattened world of chemistry and biology. Brief. Bioinformatics. 2009, 10 (3): 247-258.Google Scholar
- Kastritis PL, Moal IH, Hwang H, Weng Z, Bates PA, Bonvin AM, Janin J: A structure-based benchmark for protein-protein binding affinity. Protein Sci. 2011, 20 (3): 482-491. 10.1002/pro.580.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Moal IH, Fernandez-Recio J: SKEMPI: a structural kinetic and energetic database of mutant protein interactions and its use in empirical models. Bioinformatics. 2012, 28 (20): 2600-2607. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts489.Google Scholar
- Moal IH, Moretti R, Baker D, Fernandez-Recio J: Scoring functions for protein-protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2013.06.017Google Scholar
- Kastritis PL, Bonvin AM: Are scoring functions in protein-protein docking ready to predict interactomes? Clues from a novel binding affinity benchmark. J Proteome Res. 2010, 9 (5): 2216-2225. 10.1021/pr9009854.Google Scholar
- Pallara C, Jimenez-Garcia B, Perez-Cano L, Romero M, Solernou A, Grosdidier S, Pons C, Moal IH, Fernandez-Recio J: Expanding the frontiers of protein-protein modelling: From docking and scoring to binding affinity predictions and other challenges. Proteins. 2013, doi: 10.1002/prot.24387Google Scholar
- Demir-Kavuk O, Krull F, Chae MH, Knapp EW: Predicting protein complex geometries with linear scoring functions. Genome Inform. 2010, 24: 21-30.Google Scholar
- Cheng TM, Blundell TL, Fernandez-Recio J: pyDock: electrostatics and desolvation for effective scoring of rigid-body protein-protein docking. Proteins. 2007, 68 (2): 503-515. 10.1002/prot.21419.Google Scholar
- Lyskov S, Gray JJ: The RosettaDock server for local protein-protein docking. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36 (Web Server issue): W233-238.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Dominguez C, Boelens R, Bonvin AM: HADDOCK: a protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. J Am Chem Soc. 2003, 125 (7): 1731-1737. 10.1021/ja026939x.Google Scholar
- Pierce B, Weng Z: ZRANK: reranking protein docking predictions with an optimized energy function. Proteins. 2007, 67 (4): 1078-1086. 10.1002/prot.21373.Google Scholar
- Pierce B, Weng Z: A combination of rescoring and refinement significantly improves protein docking performance. Proteins. 2008, 72: 270-279. 10.1002/prot.21920.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Andrusier N, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ: FireDock: fast interaction refinement in molecular docking. Proteins. 2007, 69: 139-159. 10.1002/prot.21495.Google Scholar
- Mashiach E, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ: FiberDock: Flexible induced-fit backbone refinement in molecular docking. Proteins. 2010, 78 (6): 1503-1519.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Zacharias M: Protein-protein docking with a reduced protein model accounting for side-chain flexibility. Protein Sci. 2003, 12 (6): 1271-1282. 10.1110/ps.0239303.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Tovchigrechko A, Vakser IA: Development and testing of an automated approach to protein docking. Proteins. 2005, 60 (2): 296-301. 10.1002/prot.20573.Google Scholar
- Liang S, Liu S, Zhang C, Zhou Y: A simple reference state makes a significant improvement in near-native selections from structurally refined docking decoys. Proteins. 2007, 69 (2): 244-253. 10.1002/prot.21498.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Murphy J, Gatchell DW, Prasad JC, Vajda S: Combination of scoring functions improves discrimination in protein-protein docking. Proteins. 2003, 53 (4): 840-854. 10.1002/prot.10473.Google Scholar
- Mitra P, Pal D: Using correlated parameters for improved ranking of protein-protein docking decoys. J Comput Chem. 2011, 32 (5): 787-796. 10.1002/jcc.21657.Google Scholar
- Huang SY, Zou X: An iterative knowledge-based scoring function for protein-protein recognition. Proteins. 2008, 72 (2): 557-579. 10.1002/prot.21949.Google Scholar
- Pons C, Talavera D, de la Cruz X, Orozco M, Fernandez-Recio J: Scoring by intermolecular pairwise propensities of exposed residues (SIPPER): a new efficient potential for protein-protein docking. J Chem Inf Model. 2011, 51 (2): 370-377. 10.1021/ci100353e.Google Scholar
- Moont G, Gabb HA, Sternberg MJ: Use of pair potentials across protein interfaces in screening predicted docked complexes. Proteins. 1999, 35 (3): 364-373. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990515)35:3<364::AID-PROT11>3.0.CO;2-4.Google Scholar
- Feliu E, Aloy P, Oliva B: On the analysis of protein-protein interactions via knowledge-based potentials for the prediction of protein-protein docking. Protein Sci. 2011, 20 (3): 529-541. 10.1002/pro.585.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Geppert T, Proschak E, Schneider G: Protein-protein docking by shape-complementarity and property matching. J Comput Chem. 2010, 31 (9): 1919-1928.Google Scholar
- Muller W, Sticht H: A protein-specifically adapted scoring function for the reranking of docking solutions. Proteins. 2007, 67: 98-111. 10.1002/prot.21310.Google Scholar
- Liu S, Vakser IA: DECK: Distance and environment-dependent, coarse-grained, knowledge-based potentials for protein-protein docking. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011, 12: 280-10.1186/1471-2105-12-280.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Chuang GY, Kozakov D, Brenke R, Comeau SR, Vajda S: DARS (Decoys As the Reference State) potentials for protein-protein docking. Biophys J. 2008, 95 (9): 4217-4227. 10.1529/biophysj.108.135814.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Tobi D: Designing coarse grained-and atom based-potentials for protein-protein docking. BMC Struct Biol. 2010, 10: 40-10.1186/1472-6807-10-40.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Tobi D, Bahar I: Optimal design of protein docking potentials: efficiency and limitations. Proteins. 2006, 62 (4): 970-981.Google Scholar
- Moal IH, Fernandez-Recio J: Intermolecular contact potentials for protein-protein interactions extracted from binding free energy changes upon mutation. J Chem Theory Comput. 2013, 9 (8): 3715-3727. 10.1021/ct400295z.Google Scholar
- Chang S, Jiao X, Li CH, Gong XQ, Chen WZ, Wang CX: Amino acid network and its scoring application in protein-protein docking. Biophys Chem. 2008, 134 (3): 111-118. 10.1016/j.bpc.2007.12.005.Google Scholar
- Khashan R, Zheng W, Tropsha A: Scoring protein interaction decoys using exposed residues (SPIDER): a novel multibody interaction scoring function based on frequent geometric patterns of interfacial residues. Proteins. 2012, 80 (9): 2207-2217. 10.1002/prot.24110.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Mitra P, Pal D: New measures for estimating surface complementarity and packing at protein-protein interfaces. FEBS Lett. 2010, 584 (6): 1163-1168. 10.1016/j.febslet.2010.02.021.Google Scholar
- Pons C, Glaser F, Fernandez-Recio J: Prediction of protein-binding areas by small-world residue networks and application to docking. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011, 12: 378-10.1186/1471-2105-12-378.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Duhovny D, Nussinov R, Wolfson H: Efficient Unbound Docking of Rigid Molecules. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 2452: Algorithms in Bioinformatics. Edited by: Guigó R, Gusfield D. 2002, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 185-200.Google Scholar
- Shentu Z, Al Hasan M, Bystroff C, Zaki MJ: Context shapes: Efficient complementary shape matching for protein-protein docking. Proteins. 2008, 70 (3): 1056-1073.Google Scholar
- Chen R, Li L, Weng Z: ZDOCK: an initial-stage protein-docking algorithm. Proteins. 2003, 52: 80-87. 10.1002/prot.10389.Google Scholar
- Axenopoulos A, Daras P, Papadopoulos GE, Houstis EN: SP-dock: protein-protein docking using shape and physicochemical complementarity. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2013, 10: 135-150.Google Scholar
- Gu S, Koehl P, Hass J, Amenta N: Surface-histogram: a new shape descriptor for protein-protein docking. Proteins. 2012, 80: 221-238. 10.1002/prot.23192.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Venkatraman V, Yang YD, Sael L, Kihara D: Protein-protein docking using region-based 3D Zernike descriptors. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009, 10: 407-10.1186/1471-2105-10-407.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ritchie DW, Kemp GJ: Protein docking using spherical polar Fourier correlations. Proteins. 2000, 39 (2): 178-194. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(20000501)39:2<178::AID-PROT8>3.0.CO;2-6.Google Scholar
- Gabb HA, Jackson RM, Sternberg MJ: Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. J Mol Biol. 1997, 272: 106-120. 10.1006/jmbi.1997.1203.Google Scholar
- Katchalski-Katzir E, Shariv I, Eisenstein M, Friesem AA, Aflalo C, Vakser IA: Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1992, 89 (6): 2195-2199. 10.1073/pnas.89.6.2195.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Mandell JG, Roberts VA, Pique ME, Kotlovyi V, Mitchell JC, Nelson E, Tsigelny I, Ten Eyck LF: Protein docking using continuum electrostatics and geometric fit. Protein Eng. 2001, 14 (2): 105-113. 10.1093/protein/14.2.105.Google Scholar
- Chae MH, Krull F, Lorenzen S, Knapp EW: Predicting protein complex geometries with a neural network. Proteins. 2010, 78 (4): 1026-1039. 10.1002/prot.22626.Google Scholar
- Palma PN, Krippahl L, Wampler JE, Moura JJ: BiGGER: a new (soft) docking algorithm for predicting protein interactions. Proteins. 2000, 39 (4): 372-384. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(20000601)39:4<372::AID-PROT100>3.0.CO;2-Q.Google Scholar
- Aze J, Bourquard T, Hamel S, Poupon A, Ritchie DW: Using Kendall-τ Meta-Bagging to Improve Protein-Protein Docking Predictions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 7036: Pattern Recognition in Bioinformatics. Edited by: Loog M, Wessels L, Reinders M, Ridder D. 2011, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 284-295.Google Scholar
- Bourquard T, Bernauer J, Aze J, Poupon A: A collaborative filtering approach for protein-protein docking scoring functions. PLoS ONE. 2011, 6 (4): e18541-10.1371/journal.pone.0018541.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Bernauer J, Aze J, Janin J, Poupon A: A new protein-protein docking scoring function based on interface residue properties. Bioinformatics. 2007, 23 (5): 555-562. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl654.Google Scholar
- Fink F, Hochrein J, Wolowski V, Merkl R, Gronwald W: PROCOS: computational analysis of protein-protein complexes. J Comput Chem. 2011, 32 (12): 2575-2586. 10.1002/jcc.21837.Google Scholar
- Bordner AJ, Gorin AA: Protein docking using surface matching and supervised machine learning. Proteins. 2007, 68 (2): 488-502. 10.1002/prot.21406.Google Scholar
- Kozakov D, Schueler-Furman O, Vajda S: Discrimination of near-native structures in protein-protein docking by testing the stability of local minima. Proteins. 2008, 72 (3): 993-1004. 10.1002/prot.21997.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Torchala M, Moal IH, Chaleil RA, Agius R, Bates PA: A Markov-chain model description of binding funnels to enhance the ranking of docked solutions. Proteins. 2013, doi: 10.1002/prot.24369Google Scholar
- London N, Schueler-Furman O: FunHunt: model selection based on energy landscape characteristics. Biochem Soc Trans. 2008, 36: 1418-1421. 10.1042/BST0361418.Google Scholar
- London N, Schueler-Furman O: Funnel hunting in a rough terrain: learning and discriminating native energy funnels. Structure. 2008, 16 (2): 269-279. 10.1016/j.str.2007.11.013.Google Scholar
- London N, Schueler-Furman O: Assessing the energy landscape of CAPRI targets by FunHunt. Proteins. 2007, 69 (4): 809-815. 10.1002/prot.21736.Google Scholar
- Ravikumar KM, Huang W, Yang S: Coarse-grained simulations of protein-protein association: an energy landscape perspective. Biophys J. 2012, 103 (4): 837-845. 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.07.013.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Zheng W, Schafer NP, Davtyan A, Papoian GA, Wolynes PG: Predictive energy landscapes for protein-protein association. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012, 109 (47): 19244-19249. 10.1073/pnas.1216215109.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Liu S, Zhang C, Zhou H, Zhou Y: A physical reference state unifies the structure-derived potential of mean force for protein folding and binding. Proteins. 2004, 56: 93-101. 10.1002/prot.20019.Google Scholar
- Hwang H, Vreven T, Janin J, Weng Z: Protein-protein docking benchmark version 4.0. Proteins. 2010, 78 (15): 3111-3114. 10.1002/prot.22830.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Moal IH, Bates PA: SwarmDock and the Use of normal modes in protein-protein docking. Int J Mol Sci. 2010, 11 (10): 3623-3648. 10.3390/ijms11103623.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Li X, Moal IH, Bates PA: Detection and refinement of encounter complexes for protein-protein docking: taking account of macromolecular crowding. Proteins. 2010, 78 (15): 3189-3196. 10.1002/prot.22770.Google Scholar
- Torchala M, Moal IH, Chaleil RA, Fernandez-Recio J, Bates PA: SwarmDock: a server for flexible protein-protein docking. Bioinformatics. 2013, 29 (6): 807-809. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt038.Google Scholar
- Viswanath S, Ravikant DV, Elber R: Improving ranking of models for protein complexes with side chain modeling and atomic potentials. Proteins. 2012, 81 (4): 592-606.Google Scholar
- Lu H, Lu L, Skolnick J: Development of unified statistical potentials describing protein-protein interactions. Biophys J. 2003, 84 (3): 1895-1901. 10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74997-2.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Chaudhury S, Lyskov S, Gray JJ: PyRosetta: a script-based interface for implementing molecular modeling algorithms using Rosetta. Bioinformatics. 2010, 26 (5): 689-691. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq007.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lu M, Dousis AD, Ma J: OPUS-PSP: an orientation-dependent statistical all-atom potential derived from side-chain packing. J Mol Biol. 2008, 376: 288-301. 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.11.033.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL: Self-consistent estimation of inter-residue protein contact energies based on an equilibrium mixture approximation of residues. Proteins. 1999, 34: 49-68. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990101)34:1<49::AID-PROT5>3.0.CO;2-L.Google Scholar
- Camacho CJ, Vajda S: Protein docking along smooth association pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001, 98 (19): 10636-10641. 10.1073/pnas.181147798.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Bornot A, Etchebest C, de Brevern AG: Predicting protein flexibility through the prediction of local structures. Proteins. 2011, 79 (3): 839-852. 10.1002/prot.22922.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Pandey BP, Zhang C, Yuan X, Zi J, Zhou Y: Protein flexibility prediction by an all-atom mean-field statistical theory. Protein Sci. 2005, 14 (7): 1772-1777. 10.1110/ps.041311005.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Gunasekaran K, Nussinov R: How different are structurally flexible and rigid binding sites? Sequence and structural features discriminating proteins that do and do not undergo conformational change upon ligand binding. J Mol Biol. 2007, 365: 257-273. 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.09.062.Google Scholar
- Dobbins SE, Lesk VI, Sternberg MJ: Insights into protein flexibility: The relationship between normal modes and conformational change upon protein-protein docking. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008, 105 (30): 10390-10395. 10.1073/pnas.0802496105.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Karaca E, Bonvin AM: A multidomain flexible docking approach to deal with large conformational changes in the modeling of biomolecular complexes. Structure. 2011, 19 (4): 555-565. 10.1016/j.str.2011.01.014.Google Scholar
- Fernandez-Recio J, Totrov M, Skorodumov C, Abagyan R: Optimal docking area: a new method for predicting protein-protein interaction sites. Proteins. 2005, 58: 134-143.Google Scholar
- Arafat Y, Kamruzzaman J, Karmakar GC, Fernandez-Recio J: Predicting protein-protein interfaces as clusters of optimal docking area points. Int J Data Min Bioinform. 2009, 3: 55-67. 10.1504/IJDMB.2009.023884.Google Scholar
- Feng Y, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan RL: Potentials ‘R’ Us web-server for protein energy estimations with coarse-grained knowledge-based potentials. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010, 11: 92-10.1186/1471-2105-11-92.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Vajda S, Hall DR, Kozakov D: Sampling and scoring: A marriage made in heaven. Proteins. 2013, doi: 10.1002/prot.24343Google Scholar
- Cossock D, Zhang T: Subset ranking using regression. Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on Learning Theory, COLT’06: 22-25 June 2006; Pittsburgh. Edited by: Simons HU, Lugosi G. 2006, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 605-619.Google Scholar
- Li P, Burges C, Wu Q, Platt JC, Koller D, Singer Y, Roweis S: McRank: Learning to Rank Using Multiple Classification and Gradient Boosting. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems: 3-6 December 2007; Vancouver. Edited by: Platt JC, Koller D, Singer Y, Roweis ST. 2008, New York: Curran Associates Inc, 1176-1183.Google Scholar
- Crammer K, Singer Y: Pranking with Ranking. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14. Edited by: Dietterich TG, Becker S, Thrun S, Obermayer K. 2001, Cambridge: MIT Press, 641-647.Google Scholar
- Shashua A, Levin A: Ranking with large margin principle: Two approaches. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 15. Edited by: Becker S, Thrun S, Obermayer K. 2003, Cambridge: MIT Press, 937-944.Google Scholar
- Herbrich R, Graepel T, Obermayer K: Large margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression. Advances in Large Margin Classifiers. Edited by: Smola AJ, Bartlett PL, Scholkopf B, Schuurmans D. 2000, Cambridge: MIT Press, 115-132.Google Scholar
- Freund Y, Iyer R, Schapire RE, Singer Y: An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003, 4: 933-969.Google Scholar
- Burges C, Shaked T, Renshaw E, Lazier A, Deeds M, Hamilton N, Hullender G: Learning to rank using gradient descent. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, ICML ‘05: 7-11 August 2005; Bonn. Edited by: De Raedt L, Wrobel S. 2005, New York: ACM, 89-96.Google Scholar
- Zheng Z, Zha H, Zhang T, Chapelle O, Chen K, Sun G: A General Boosting Method and its Application to Learning Ranking Functions for Web Search Neur. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems: 3-6 December 2007; Vancouver. Edited by: Platt JC, Koller D, Singer Y, Roweis ST. 2008, New York: Curran Associates Inc, 1697-1704.Google Scholar
- Cao Y, Xu J, Yan Liu T, Li H, Huang Y, Wuen Hon H: Adapting ranking SVM to document retrieval. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ‘06: 6-10 August 2007; Seattle. Edited by: Efthimiadis EN, Dumais ST, Hawking D, Järvelin K. 2006, New York: ACM, 186-193.Google Scholar
- Burges CJC, Ragno R, Le QV: Learning to Rank with Nonsmooth Cost Functions. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems: 4-7 December 2006; Vancouver. Edited by: Schölkopf B, Platt JC, Hoffman T. 2006, New York: Curran Associates Inc, 193-200.Google Scholar
- Wu Q, Burges CJ, Svore KM, Gao J: Adapting boosting for information retrieval measures. Inf. Retr. 2010, 13 (3): 254-270. 10.1007/s10791-009-9112-1.Google Scholar
- Li H: A short introduction to learning to rank. IEICE Transactions. 2011, 94-D (10): 1854-1862.Google Scholar
- Cao Z, Qin T, Liu TY, Tsai MF, Li H: Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning, ICML ‘07: 20-24 June 2007; Corvalis. Edited by: Zoubin G. 2007, New York: ACM, 129-136.Google Scholar
- Xia F, Liu TY, Wang J, Zhang W, Li H: Listwise approach to learning to rank: theory and algorithm. Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, ICML ‘08: 5-9 July; Helsinki. Edited by: Cohen W. 2008, New York: ACM, 1192-1199.Google Scholar
- Xu J, Li H: AdaRank: a boosting algorithm for information retrieval. Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR ‘07: 23-27 July; Amsterdam. Edited by: Wessel K, de Vries AP. 2007, New York: ACM, 391-398.Google Scholar
- Yue Y, Finley T, Radlinski F, Joachims T: A support vector method for optimizing average precision. Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR ‘07: 23-27 July; Amsterdam. Edited by: Wessel K, de Vries AP. 2007, New York: ACM, 271-278.Google Scholar
- Taylor M, Guiver J, Robertson S, Minka T: SoftRank: optimizing non-smooth rank metrics. Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM ‘08: 11-12 February; Palo Alto. Edited by: Najork M. 2008, New York: ACM, 77-86.Google Scholar
- Xu J, Yan Liu T, Lu M, Li H, Ying Ma W: Directly optimizing evaluation measures in learning to rank. Proceedings of the 31th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR ‘08: 20-24 July; Singapore. Edited by: Chua TS, Leong M. 2008, New York: ACM, 107-114.Google Scholar
- Chapelle O, Chang Y, Liu TY: Future directions in learning to rank. J Mach Learn Res. 2011, 14: 91-100.Google Scholar
- Janin J: Assessing predictions of protein-protein interaction: the CAPRI experiment. Protein Sci. 2005, 14 (2): 278-283. 10.1110/ps.041081905.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lensink MF, Mendez R, Wodak SJ: Docking and scoring protein complexes: CAPRI 3rd Edition. Proteins. 2007, 69 (4): 704-718. 10.1002/prot.21804.Google Scholar
- Rajgaria R, McAllister SR, Floudas CA: A novel high resolution Cα-Cα distance dependent force field based on a high quality decoy set. Proteins. 2006, 65 (3): 726-741. 10.1002/prot.21149.Google Scholar
- Rajgaria R, McAllister SR, Floudas CA: Distance dependent centroid to centroid force fields using high resolution decoys. Proteins. 2008, 70 (3): 950-970.Google Scholar
- Bastolla U, Farwer J, Knapp EW, Vendruscolo M: How to guarantee optimal stability for most representative structures in the Protein Data Bank. Proteins. 2001, 44 (2): 79-96. 10.1002/prot.1075.Google Scholar
- Pokarowski P, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan RL, Kothari NS, Pokarowska M, Kolinski A: Inferring ideal amino acid interaction forms from statistical protein contact potentials. Proteins. 2005, 59: 49-57. 10.1002/prot.20380.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Bryant SH, Lawrence CE: An empirical energy function for threading protein sequence through the folding motif. Proteins. 1993, 16: 92-112. 10.1002/prot.340160110.Google Scholar
- Betancourt MR, Thirumalai D: Pair potentials for protein folding: choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes. Protein Sci. 1999, 8 (2): 361-369.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Godzik A, Kolinski A, Skolnick J: Are proteins ideal mixtures of amino acids? Analysis of energy parameter sets. Protein Sci. 1995, 4 (10): 2107-2117. 10.1002/pro.5560041016.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Park B, Levitt M: Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. J Mol Biol. 1996, 258 (2): 367-392. 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0256.Google Scholar
- Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL: Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation. Macromolecules. 1985, 18 (3): 534-552. 10.1021/ma00145a039.Google Scholar
- Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL: Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Biol. 1996, 256 (3): 623-644. 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0114.Google Scholar
- Mirny LA, Shakhnovich EI: How to derive a protein folding potential? A new approach to an old problem. J Mol Biol. 1996, 264 (5): 1164-1179. 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0704.Google Scholar
- Simons KT, Kooperberg C, Huang E, Baker D: Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J Mol Biol. 1997, 268: 209-225. 10.1006/jmbi.1997.0959.Google Scholar
- Simons KT, Ruczinski I, Kooperberg C, Fox BA, Bystroff C, Baker D: Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins. Proteins. 1999, 34: 82-95. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990101)34:1<82::AID-PROT7>3.0.CO;2-A.Google Scholar
- Boniecki M, Rotkiewicz P, Skolnick J, Kolinski A: Protein fragment reconstruction using various modeling techniques. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2003, 17 (11): 725-738.Google Scholar
- Robson B, Osguthorpe DJ: Refined models for computer simulation of protein folding. Applications to the study of conserved secondary structure and flexible hinge points during the folding of pancreatic trypsin inhibitor. J Mol Biol. 1979, 132: 19-51. 10.1016/0022-2836(79)90494-7.Google Scholar
- Skolnick J, Jaroszewski L, Kolinski A, Godzik A: Derivation and testing of pair potentials for protein folding. When is the quasichemical approximation correct?. Protein Sci. 1997, 6 (3): 676-688.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Skolnick J, Kolinski A, Ortiz A: Derivation of protein-specific pair potentials based on weak sequence fragment similarity. Proteins. 2000, 38: 3-16. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(20000101)38:1<3::AID-PROT2>3.0.CO;2-S.Google Scholar
- Thomas PD, Dill KA: An iterative method for extracting energy-like quantities from protein structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996, 93 (21): 11628-11633. 10.1073/pnas.93.21.11628.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Tobi D, Shafran G, Linial N, Elber R: On the design and analysis of protein folding potentials. Proteins. 2000, 40: 71-85. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(20000701)40:1<71::AID-PROT90>3.0.CO;2-3.Google Scholar
- Tanaka S, Scheraga HA: Medium- and long-range interaction parameters between amino acids for predicting three-dimensional structures of proteins. Macromolecules. 1976, 9 (6): 945-950. 10.1021/ma60054a013.Google Scholar
- Vendruscolo M, Domany E: Pairwise contact potentials are unsuitable for protein folding. J Chem Phys. 1998, 109: 11101-11108. 10.1063/1.477748.Google Scholar
- Yang Y, Zhou Y: Specific interactions for ab initio folding of protein terminal regions with secondary structures. Proteins. 2008, 72 (2): 793-803. 10.1002/prot.21968.Google Scholar
- Yang Y, Zhou Y: Ab initio folding of terminal segments with secondary structures reveals the fine difference between two closely related all-atom statistical energy functions. Protein Sci. 2008, 17 (7): 1212-1219. 10.1110/ps.033480.107.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Shen MY, Sali A: Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci. 2006, 15 (11): 2507-2524. 10.1110/ps.062416606.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Eswar N, Webb B, Marti-Renom MA, Madhusudhan MS, Eramian D, Shen MY, Pieper U, Sali A: Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER. Curr Protoc Protein Sci. 2007, 2: 2.9-Google Scholar
- Eswar N, Webb B, Marti-Renom MA, Madhusudhan MS, Eramian D, Shen MY, Pieper U, Sali A: Comparative protein structure modeling using Modeller. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2006, 5: 5.6-Google Scholar
- Zhang C, Vasmatzis G, Cornette JL, DeLisi C: Determination of atomic desolvation energies from the structures of crystallized proteins. J Mol Biol. 1997, 267 (3): 707-726. 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0859.Google Scholar
- Mintseris J, Pierce B, Wiehe K, Anderson R, Chen R, Weng Z: Integrating statistical pair potentials into protein complex prediction. Proteins. 2007, 69 (3): 511-520. 10.1002/prot.21502.Google Scholar
- Zhang J, Zhang Y: A novel side-chain orientation dependent potential derived from random-walk reference state for protein fold selection and structure prediction. PLoS ONE. 2010, 5 (10): e15386-10.1371/journal.pone.0015386.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Zhou H, Skolnick J: GOAP: a generalized orientation-dependent, all-atom statistical potential for protein structure prediction. Biophys J. 2011, 101 (8): 2043-2052. 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.09.012.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Saladin A, Fiorucci S, Poulain P, Prevost C, Zacharias M: PTools: an opensource molecular docking library. BMC Struct. Biol. 2009, 9: 27-10.1186/1472-6807-9-27.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Fernandez-Recio J, Totrov M, Abagyan R: Identification of protein-protein interaction sites from docking energy landscapes. J Mol Biol. 2004, 335 (3): 843-865. 10.1016/j.jmb.2003.10.069.Google Scholar
- Lazaridis T, Karplus M: Effective energy function for proteins in solution. Proteins. 1999, 35 (2): 133-152. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990501)35:2<133::AID-PROT1>3.0.CO;2-N.Google Scholar
- Feig M, Karanicolas J, Brooks CL: MMTSB Tool Set: enhanced sampling and multiscale modeling methods for applications in structural biology. J Mol Graph Model. 2004, 22 (5): 377-395. 10.1016/j.jmgm.2003.12.005.Google Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.