Abstract
Despite their biological importance in many regulatory processes, protein-peptide recognition mechanisms are difficult to study experimentally at the structural level because of the inherent flexibility of peptides and the often transient interactions on which they rely. Complementary methods like biomolecular docking are therefore required. The prediction of the three-dimensional structure of protein-peptide complexes raises unique challenges for computational algorithms, as exemplified by the recent introduction of protein-peptide targets in the blind international experiment CAPRI (Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions). Conventional protein-protein docking approaches are often struggling with the high flexibility of peptides whose short sizes impede protocols and scoring functions developed for larger interfaces. On the other side, protein-small ligand docking methods are unable to cope with the larger number of degrees of freedom in peptides compared to small molecules and the typically reduced available information to define the binding site. In this chapter, we describe a protocol to model protein-peptide complexes using the HADDOCK web server, working through a test case to illustrate every steps. The flexibility challenge that peptides represent is dealt with by combining elements of conformational selection and induced fit molecular recognition theories.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Tzakos AG, Fuchs P, van Nuland NA et al (2004) NMR and molecular dynamics studies of an autoimmune myelin basic protein peptide and its antagonist: structural implications for the MHC II (I-Au)-peptide complex from docking calculations. Eur J Biochem 271:3399–3413
Musi V, Birdsall B, Fernandez-Ballester G et al (2006) New approaches to high-throughput structure characterization of SH3 complexes: the example of Myosin-3 and Myosin-5 SH3 domains from S. cerevisiae. Protein Sci 15:795–807
Huang BX, Kim H-Y (2006) Interdomain conformational changes in Akt activation revealed by chemical cross-linking and tandem mass spectrometry. Mol Cell Proteomics 5:1045–1053
Casares S, Ab E, Eshuis H et al (2007) The high-resolution NMR structure of the R21A Spc-SH3:P41 complex: understanding the determinants of binding affinity by comparison with Abl-SH3. BMC Struct Biol 7:22
Gelis I, Bonvin AM, Keramisanou D et al (2007) Structural basis for signal-sequence recognition by the translocase motor SecA as determined by NMR. Cell 131:756–769
Schneider T, Kruse T, Wimmer R et al (2010) Plectasin, a fungal defensin, targets the bacterial cell wall precursor Lipid II. Science 328:1168–1172
Wodak SJ, Janin J (1978) Computer analysis of protein-protein interaction. J Mol Biol 124:323–342
Strynadka NCJ, Eisenstein M, Katchalski-Katzir E et al (1996) Molecular docking programs successfully predict the binding of a β-lactamase inhibitory protein to TEM-1 β-lactamase. Nat Struct Mol Biol 3:233–239
Petsalaki E, Russell RB (2008) Peptide-mediated interactions in biological systems: new discoveries and applications. Curr Opin Biotechnol 19:344–350
Stein A, Aloy P (2008) Contextual specificity in peptide-mediated protein interactions. PLoS One 3:e2524
London N, Movshovitz-Attias D, Schueler-Furman O (2010) The structural basis of peptide-protein binding strategies. Structure 18:188–199
London N, Raveh B, Schueler-Furman O (2013) Peptide docking and structure-based characterization of peptide binding: from knowledge to know-how. Curr Opin Struct Biol 23:894–902
Petsalaki E, Stark A, Garcia-Urdiales E, Russell RB (2009) Accurate prediction of peptide binding sites on protein surfaces. PLoS Comput Biol 5:e1000335
Antes I (2010) DynaDock: a new molecular dynamics-based algorithm for protein-peptide docking including receptor flexibility. Proteins 78:1084–1104
Raveh B, London N, Schueler-Furman O (2010) Sub-angstrom modeling of complexes between flexible peptides and globular proteins. Proteins 78:2029–2040
Ben-Shimon A, Eisenstein M (2010) Computational mapping of anchoring spots on protein surfaces. J Mol Biol 402:259–277
Dagliyan O, Proctor EA, D’Auria KM et al (2011) Structural and dynamic determinants of protein-peptide recognition. Structure 19:1837–1845
Raveh B, London N, Zimmerman L, Schueler-Furman O (2011) Rosetta FlexPepDock ab-initio: simultaneous folding, docking and refinement of peptides onto their receptors. PLoS One 6:e18934
Donsky E, Wolfson HJ (2011) PepCrawler: a fast RRT-based algorithm for high-resolution refinement and binding affinity estimation of peptide inhibitors. Bioinformatics 27:2836–2842
Lavi A, Ngan CH, Movshovitz-Attias D et al (2013) Detection of peptide-binding sites on protein surfaces: the first step toward the modeling and targeting of peptide-mediated interactions. Proteins 81:2096–2105
Verschueren E, Vanhee P, Rousseau F et al (2013) Protein-peptide complex prediction through fragment interaction patterns. Structure 21:789–797
De Vries SJ, van Dijk AD, Krzeminski M et al (2007) HADDOCK versus HADDOCK: new features and performance of HADDOCK2.0 on the CAPRI targets. Proteins 69:726–733
Trellet M, Melquiond ASJ, Bonvin AMJJ (2013) A unified conformational selection and induced fit approach to protein-peptide docking. PLoS One 8:e58769
Dominguez C, Boelens R, Bonvin AM (2003) HADDOCK: a protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. J Am Chem Soc 125:1731–1737
Brünger AT, Adams PD, Clore GM et al (1998) Crystallography & NMR system: a new software suite for macromolecular structure determination. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 54:905–921
Brunger AT (2007) Version 1.2 of the crystallography and NMR system. Nat Protoc 2:2728–2733
Jorgensen WL, Tirado-Rives J (1988) The OPLS [optimized potentials for liquid simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. J Am Chem Soc 110:1657–1666
Moreira IS, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ (2010) Protein-protein docking dealing with the unknown. J Comput Chem 31:317–342
Lensink MF, Wodak SJ (2013) Docking, scoring, and affinity prediction in CAPRI. Proteins 81:2082–2095
Diella F, Haslam N, Chica C et al (2008) Understanding eukaryotic linear motifs and their role in cell signaling and regulation. Front Biosci 13:6580–6603
Van Dijk ADJ, Boelens R, Bonvin AMJJ (2005) Data-driven docking for the study of biomolecular complexes. FEBS J 272:293–312
Melquiond ASJ, Bonvin AMJJ (2010) Data-driven docking: using external information to spark the biomolecular rendez-vous. In: Protein-protein complexes: analysis, modelling and drug design. Edited by M. Zacharrias, Imperial College Press, London, p 183–209
Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD et al (1983) Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys 79:926–935
Janin J, Henrick K, Moult J et al (2003) CAPRI: a Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions. Proteins 52:2–9
Lensink MF, Wodak SJ (2010) Docking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009. Proteins 78:3073–3084
Schrodinger L (2010) The PyMOL molecular graphics system, version 1.3r1
Claude J-B, Suhre K, Notredame C et al (2004) CaspR: a web server for automated molecular replacement using homology modelling. Nucleic Acids Res 32:W606–W609
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Trellet, M., Melquiond, A.S.J., Bonvin, A.M.J.J. (2015). Information-Driven Modeling of Protein-Peptide Complexes. In: Zhou, P., Huang, J. (eds) Computational Peptidology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1268. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2285-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2285-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2284-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2285-7
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols