Search

Prediction of protein–ligand binding poses is an essential component for understanding protein–ligand interactions and computer‐aided drug design. Various proteins involve prosthetic groups such as heme for their functions, and adequate consideration of the prosthetic groups is vital for protein–ligand docking. Here, we extend the GalaxyDock2 protein–ligand docking algorithm to handle ligand docking to heme proteins. Docking to heme proteins involves increased complexity because the interaction of heme iron and ligand has covalent nature. GalaxyDock2‐HEME, a new protein–ligand docking program for heme proteins, has been developed based on GalaxyDock2 by adding an orientation‐dependent scoring term to describe heme iron‐ligand coordination interaction. This new docking program performs better than other noncommercial docking programs such as EADock with MMBP, AutoDock Vina, PLANTS, LeDock, and GalaxyDock2 on a heme protein–ligand docking benchmark set in which ligands are known to bind iron. In addition, docking results on two other sets of heme protein–ligand complexes in which ligands do not bind iron show that GalaxyDock2‐HEME does not have a high bias toward iron binding compared to other docking programs. This implies that the new docking program can distinguish iron binders from noniron binders for heme proteins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Predicting conformational changes of both the protein and the ligand is a major challenge when a protein–ligand complex structure is predicted from the unbound protein and ligand structures. Herein, we introduce a new protein–ligand docking program called GalaxyDock3 that considers the full ligand conformational flexibility by explicitly sampling the ligand ring conformation and allowing the relaxation of the full ligand degrees of freedom, including bond angles and lengths. This method is based on the previous version (GalaxyDock2) which performs the global optimization of a designed score function. Ligand ring conformation is sampled from a ring conformation library constructed from structure databases. The GalaxyDock3 score function was trained with an additional bonded energy term for the ligand on a large set of complex structures. The performance of GalaxyDock3 was improved compared to GalaxyDock2 when predicted ligand conformation was used as the input for docking, especially when the input ligand conformation differs significantly from the crystal conformation. GalaxyDock3 also compared favorably with other available docking programs on two benchmark tests that contained diverse ligand rings. The program is freely available at http://galaxy.seoklab.org/softwares/galaxydock.html. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • Domain–domain docking can provide useful information when it is difficult to predict complete multidomain protein structures accurately and/or when multiple conformational states with different domain orientations are present. • GalaxyDomDock is an ab initio domain–domain docking web server that returns possible docked conformations of two given domain structures without relying on the availability of known structures or sequences of related proteins. • GalaxyDomDock utilizes an energy-based protein–protein docking method for initial sampling of possible domain orientations, Dijkstra's algorithm to filter out geometrically infeasible orientations for the given linker, and FALC loop sampling method for linker structure modeling. • GalaxyDomDock exhibits better performance than existing ab initio domain–domain docking methods such as AIDA and Rosetta. A significant proportion of proteins comprise multiple domains. Domain–domain docking is a tool that predicts multi-domain protein structures when individual domain structures can be accurately predicted but when domain orientations cannot be predicted accurately. GalaxyDomDock predicts an ensemble of domain orientations from given domain structures by docking. Such information would also be beneficial in elucidating the functions of proteins that have multiple states with different domain orientations. GalaxyDomDock is an ab initio domain–domain docking method based on GalaxyTongDock, a previously developed protein–protein docking method. Infeasible domain orientations for the given linker are effectively screened out from the docked conformations by a geometric filter, using the Dijkstra algorithm. In addition, domain linker conformations are predicted by adopting a loop sampling method FALC. The proposed GalaxyDomDock outperformed existing ab initio domain–domain docking methods, such as AIDA and Rosetta, in performance tests on the Rosetta benchmark set of two-domain proteins. GalaxyDomDock also performed better than or comparable to AIDA on the AIDA benchmark set of two-domain proteins and two-domain proteins containing discontinuous domains, including the benchmark set in which each domain of the set was modeled by the recent version of AlphaFold. The GalaxyDomDock web server is freely available as a part of GalaxyWEB at http://galaxy.seoklab.org/domdock. [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.)

Computational techniques for predicting interactions of proteins and druglike molecules have often been used to search for compounds that bind a given protein with high affinity. More recently, such tools have also been applied to the reverse procedure of searching protein targets for a given compound. Among methods for predicting protein-ligand interactions, ligand-based methods relying on similarity to ligands of known interactions are effective only when similar protein-ligand interactions are known. Receptor-based methods predicting protein-ligand interactions by molecular docking are effective only when high-accuracy receptor structures and binding sites are available. Moreover, the computational cost of molecular docking tends to be too high to be applied to the entire protein structure database. In this paper, an effective target prediction method, which combines ligand similarity-based and receptor structure-based approaches, is introduced. In this method, protein-ligand docking is performed after efficient structure- and similarity-based screening. The enriched protein target database by predicted binding ligands and sites allows detection of protein targets with previously unknown ligand interactions. The method, called GalaxySagittarius, is freely available as a web server at http://galaxy.seoklab.org/sagittarius.