Search

Proteins perform their functions by interacting with other biomolecules. For these interactions, proteins often form homo‐ or hetero‐oligomers as well. Thus, oligomer protein structures provide important clues regarding the biological roles of proteins. To this end, computational prediction of oligomer structures may be a useful tool in the absence of experimentally resolved structures. Here, we describe our server and human‐expert methods used to predict oligomer structures in the CASP14 experiment. Examples are provided for cases in which manual domain‐splitting led to improved oligomeric domain structures by ab initio docking, automated oligomer structure refinement led to improved subunit orientation and terminal structure, and manual oligomer modeling utilizing literature information generated a reasonable oligomer model. We also discussed the results of post‐prediction docking calculations with AlphaFold2 monomers as input in comparison to our blind prediction results. Overall, ab initio docking of AlphaFold2 models did not lead to better oligomer structure prediction, which may be attributed to the interfacial structural difference between the AlphaFold2 monomer structures and the crystal oligomer structures. This result poses a next‐stage challenge in oligomer structure prediction after the success of AlphaFold2. For successful protein assembly structure prediction, a different approach that exploits further evolutionary information on the interface and/or flexible docking taking the interfacial conformational flexibilities of subunit structures into account is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We participated in CARPI rounds 38‐45 both as a server predictor and a human predictor. These CAPRI rounds provided excellent opportunities for testing prediction methods for three classes of protein interactions, that is, protein‐protein, protein‐peptide, and protein‐oligosaccharide interactions. Both template‐based methods (GalaxyTBM for monomer protein, GalaxyHomomer for homo‐oligomer protein, GalaxyPepDock for protein‐peptide complex) and ab initio docking methods (GalaxyTongDock and GalaxyPPDock for protein oligomer, GalaxyPepDock‐ab‐initio for protein‐peptide complex, GalaxyDock2 and Galaxy7TM for protein‐oligosaccharide complex) have been tested. Template‐based methods depend heavily on the availability of proper templates and template‐target similarity, and template‐target difference is responsible for inaccuracy of template‐based models. Inaccurate template‐based models could be improved by our structure refinement and loop modeling methods based on physics‐based energy optimization (GalaxyRefineComplex and GalaxyLoop) for several CAPRI targets. Current ab initio docking methods require accurate protein structures as input. Small conformational changes from input structure could be accounted for by our docking methods, producing one of the best models for several CAPRI targets. However, predicting large conformational changes involving protein backbone is still challenging, and full exploration of physics‐based methods for such problems is still to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present the results for CAPRI Round 50, the fourth joint CASP-CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round comprised a total of twelve targets, including six dimers, three trimers, and three higher-order oligomers. Four of these were easy targets, for which good structural templates were available either for the full assembly, or for the main interfaces (of the higher-order oligomers). Eight were difficult targets for which only distantly related templates were found for the individual subunits. Twenty-five CAPRI groups including eight automatic servers submitted ~1250 models per target. Twenty groups including six servers participated in the CAPRI scoring challenge submitted ~190 models per target. The accuracy of the predicted models was evaluated using the classical CAPRI criteria. The prediction performance was measured by a weighted scoring scheme that takes into account the number of models of acceptable quality or higher submitted by each group as part of their five top-ranking models. Compared to the previous CASP-CAPRI challenge, top performing groups submitted such models for a larger fraction (70-75%) of the targets in this Round, but fewer of these models were of high accuracy. Scorer groups achieved stronger performance with more groups submitting correct models for 70-80% of the targets or achieving high accuracy predictions. Servers performed less well in general, except for the MDOCKPP and LZERD servers, who performed on par with human groups. In addition to these results, major advances in methodology are discussed, providing an informative overview of where the prediction of protein assemblies currently stands., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)