Search

Abstract Background Protein-protein interaction plays a key role in a multitude of biological processes, such as signal transduction, de novo drug design, immune responses, and enzymatic activities. Gaining insights of various binding abilities can deepen our understanding of the interaction. It is of great interest to understand how proteins in a complex interact with each other. Many efficient methods have been developed for identifying protein-protein interface. Results In this paper, we obtain the local information on protein-protein interface, through multi-scale local average block and hexagon structure construction. Given a pair of proteins, we use a trained support vector regression (SVR) model to select best configurations. On Benchmark v4.0, our method achieves average I rmsd value of 3.28Å and overall F nat value of 63%, which improves upon I rmsd of 3.89Å and F nat of 49% for ZRANK, and I rmsd of 3.99Å and F nat of 46% for ClusPro. On CAPRI targets, our method achieves average I rmsd value of 3.45Å and overall F nat value of 46%, which improves upon I rmsd of 4.18Å and F nat of 40% for ZRANK, and I rmsd of 5.12Å and F nat of 32% for ClusPro. The success rates by our method, FRODOCK 2.0, InterEvDock and SnapDock on Benchmark v4.0 are 41.5%, 29.0%, 29.4% and 37.0%, respectively. Conclusion Experiments show that our method performs better than some state-of-the-art methods, based on the prediction quality improved in terms of CAPRI evaluation criteria. All these results demonstrate that our method is a valuable technological tool for identifying protein-protein interface.

Abstract Background Study of macromolecular assemblies is fundamental to understand functions in cells. X-ray crystallography is the most common technique to solve their 3D structure at atomic resolution. In a crystal, however, both biologically-relevant interfaces and non-specific interfaces resulting from crystallographic packing are observed. Due to the complexity of the biological assemblies currently tackled, classifying those interfaces, i.e. distinguishing biological from crystal lattice interfaces, is not trivial and often prone to errors. In this context, analyzing the physico-chemical characteristics of biological/crystal interfaces can help researchers identify possible features that distinguish them and gain a better understanding of the systems. Results In this work, we are providing new insights into the differences between biological and crystallographic complexes by focusing on “pair-properties” of interfaces that have not yet been fully investigated. We investigated properties such intermolecular residue-residue contacts (already successfully applied to the prediction of binding affinities) and interaction energies (electrostatic, Van der Waals and desolvation). By using the XtalMany and BioMany interface datasets, we show that interfacial residue contacts, classified as a function of their physico-chemical properties, can distinguish between biological and crystallographic interfaces. The energetic terms show, on average, higher values for crystal interfaces, reflecting a less stable interface due to crystal packing compared to biological interfaces. By using a variety of machine learning approaches, we trained a new interface classification predictor based on contacts and interaction energetic features. Our predictor reaches an accuracy in classifying biological vs crystal interfaces of 0.92, compared to 0.88 for EPPIC (one of the main state-of-the-art classifiers reporting same performance as PISA). Conclusion In this work we have gained insights into the nature of intermolecular contacts and energetics terms distinguishing biological from crystallographic interfaces. Our findings might have a broader applicability in structural biology, for example for the identification of near native poses in docking. We implemented our classification approach into an easy-to-use and fast software, freely available to the scientific community from http://github.com/haddocking/interface-classifier.

Abstract Background Hot spots are interface residues that contribute most binding affinity to protein-protein interaction. A compact and relevant feature subset is important for building machine learning methods to predict hot spots on protein-protein interfaces. Although different methods have been used to detect the relevant feature subset from a variety of features related to interface residues, it is still a challenge to detect the optimal feature subset for building the final model. Results In this study, three different feature selection methods were compared to propose a new hybrid feature selection strategy. This new strategy was proved to effectively reduce the feature space when we were building the prediction models for identifying hotspot residues. It was tested on eighty-two features, both conventional and newly proposed. According to the strategy, combining the feature subsets selected by decision tree and mRMR (maximum Relevance Minimum Redundancy) individually, we were able to build a model with 6 features by using a PSFS (Pseudo Sequential Forward Selection) process. Compared with other state-of-art methods for the independent test set, our model had shown better or comparable predictive performances (with F-measure 0.622 and recall 0.821). Analysis of the 6 features confirmed that our newly proposed feature CNSV_REL1 was important for our model. The analysis also showed that the complementarity between features should be considered as an important aspect when conducting the feature selection. Conclusion In this study, most important of all, a new strategy for feature selection was proposed and proved to be effective in selecting the optimal feature subset for building prediction models, which can be used to predict hot spot residues on protein-protein interfaces. Moreover, two aspects, the generalization of the single feature and the complementarity between features, were proved to be of great importance and should be considered in feature selection methods. Finally, our newly proposed feature CNSV_REL1 had been proved an alternative and effective feature in predicting hot spots by our study. Our model is available for users through a webserver: http://zhulab.ahu.edu.cn/iPPHOT/ .

Background: Protein-protein interaction plays a key role in a multitude of biological processes, such as signal transduction, de novo drug design, immune responses, and enzymatic activities. Gaining insights of various binding abilities can deepen our understanding of the interaction. It is of great interest to understand how proteins in a complex interact with each other. Many efficient methods have been developed for identifying protein-protein interface. Results: In this paper, we obtain the local information on protein-protein interface, through multi-scale local average block and hexagon structure construction. Given a pair of proteins, we use a trained support vector regression (SVR) model to select best configurations. On Benchmark v4.0, our method achieves average Irmsd value of 3.28Å and overall Fnat value of 63%, which improves upon Irmsd of 3.89Å and Fnat of 49% for ZRANK, and Irmsd of 3.99Å and Fnat of 46% for ClusPro. On CAPRI targets, our method achieves average Irmsd value of 3.45Å and overall Fnat value of 46%, which improves upon Irmsd of 4.18Å and Fnat of 40% for ZRANK, and Irmsd of 5.12Å and Fnat of 32% for ClusPro. The success rates by our method, FRODOCK 2.0, InterEvDock and SnapDock on Benchmark v4.0 are 41.5%, 29.0%, 29.4% and 37.0%, respectively. Conclusion: Experiments show that our method performs better than some state-of-the-art methods, based on the prediction quality improved in terms of CAPRI evaluation criteria. All these results demonstrate that our method is a valuable technological tool for identifying protein-protein interface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Study of macromolecular assemblies is fundamental to understand functions in cells. X-ray crystallography is the most common technique to solve their 3D structure at atomic resolution. In a crystal, however, both biologically-relevant interfaces and non-specific interfaces resulting from crystallographic packing are observed. Due to the complexity of the biological assemblies currently tackled, classifying those interfaces, i.e. distinguishing biological from crystal lattice interfaces, is not trivial and often prone to errors. In this context, analyzing the physico-chemical characteristics of biological/crystal interfaces can help researchers identify possible features that distinguish them and gain a better understanding of the systems. Results: In this work, we are providing new insights into the differences between biological and crystallographic complexes by focusing on "pair-properties" of interfaces that have not yet been fully investigated. We investigated properties such intermolecular residue-residue contacts (already successfully applied to the prediction of binding affinities) and interaction energies (electrostatic, Van der Waals and desolvation). By using the XtalMany and BioMany interface datasets, we show that interfacial residue contacts, classified as a function of their physico-chemical properties, can distinguish between biological and crystallographic interfaces. The energetic terms show, on average, higher values for crystal interfaces, reflecting a less stable interface due to crystal packing compared to biological interfaces. By using a variety of machine learning approaches, we trained a new interface classification predictor based on contacts and interaction energetic features. Our predictor reaches an accuracy in classifying biological vs crystal interfaces of 0.92, compared to 0.88 for EPPIC (one of the main state-of-the-art classifiers reporting same performance as PISA). Conclusion: In this work we have gained insights into the nature of intermolecular contacts and energetics terms distinguishing biological from crystallographic interfaces. Our findings might have a broader applicability in structural biology, for example for the identification of near native poses in docking. We implemented our classification approach into an easy-to-use and fast software, freely available to the scientific community from http://github.com/haddocking/interface-classifier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hot spots are interface residues that contribute most binding affinity to protein-protein interaction. A compact and relevant feature subset is important for building machine learning methods to predict hot spots on protein-protein interfaces. Although different methods have been used to detect the relevant feature subset from a variety of features related to interface residues, it is still a challenge to detect the optimal feature subset for building the final model. Results: In this study, three different feature selection methods were compared to propose a new hybrid feature selection strategy. This new strategy was proved to effectively reduce the feature space when we were building the prediction models for identifying hotspot residues. It was tested on eighty-two features, both conventional and newly proposed. According to the strategy, combining the feature subsets selected by decision tree and mRMR (maximum Relevance Minimum Redundancy) individually, wewere able to build a model with 6 features by using a PSFS (Pseudo Sequential Forward Selection) process. Compared with other state-of-art methods for the independent test set, our model had shown better or comparable predictive performances (with F-measure 0.622 and recall 0.821). Analysis of the 6 features confirmed that our newly proposed feature CNSV_REL1 was important for our model. The analysis also showed that the complementarity between features should be considered as an important aspect when conducting the feature selection. Conclusion: In this study, most important of all, a new strategy for feature selection was proposed and proved to be effective in selecting the optimal feature subset for building prediction models, which can be used to predict hot spot residues on protein-protein interfaces. Moreover, two aspects, the generalization of the single feature and the complementarity between features, were proved to be of great importance and should be considered in feature selection methods. Finally, our newly proposed feature CNSV_REL1 had been proved an alternative and effective feature in predicting hot spots by our study. Our model is available for users through a webserver: http://zhulab.ahu.edu.cn/iPPHOT/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transient protein-protein interactions (PPIs), which underly most biological processes, are a prime target for therapeutic development. Immense progress has been made towards computational prediction of PPIs using methods such as protein docking and sequence analysis. However, docking generally requires high resolution structures of both of the binding partners and sequence analysis requires that a significant number of recurrent patterns exist for the identification of a potential binding site. Researchers have turned to machine learning to overcome some of the other methods’ restrictions by generalising interface sites with sets of descriptive features. Best practices for dataset generation, features, and learning algorithms have not yet been identified or agreed upon, and an analysis of the overall efficacy of machine learning based PPI predictors is due, in order to highlight potential areas for improvement. Results: The presence of unknown interaction sites as a result of limited knowledge about protein interactions in the testing set dramatically reduces prediction accuracy. Greater accuracy in labelling the data by enforcing higher interface site rates per domain resulted in an average 44% improvement across multiple machine learning algorithms. A set of 10 biologically unrelated proteins that were consistently predicted on with high accuracy emerged through our analysis. We identify seven features with the most predictive power over multiple datasets and machine learning algorithms. Through our analysis, we created a new predictor, RAD-T, that outperforms existing non-structurally specializing machine learning protein interface predictors, with an average 59% increase in MCC score on a dataset with a high number of interactions. Conclusion: Current methods of evaluating machine-learning based PPI predictors tend to undervalue their performance, which may be artificially decreased by the presence of un-identified interaction sites. Changes to predictors’ training sets will be integral to the future progress of interface prediction by machine learning methods. We reveal the need for a larger test set of well studied proteins or domain-specific scoring algorithms to compensate for poor interaction site identification on proteins in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]