Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Modeling Peptide-Protein Interactions pp 235–254Cite as

Investigating Protein–Peptide Interactions Using the Schrödinger Computational Suite

  • Protocol
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 1561))

Abstract

The Schrödinger software suite contains a broad array of computational chemistry and molecular modeling tools that can be used to study the interaction of peptides with proteins. These include molecular docking using Glide and Piper, relative binding free energy predictions with FEP+, conformational searches using MacroModel and Desmond, and structural refinement using Prime and PrimeX. In this review we provide a comprehensive overview of these tools and describe their potential application in the identification and optimization of peptide ligands for proteins.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Protocol
USD   49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more

References

  1. Repasky MP, Murphy RB, Banks JL, Greenwood JR, Tubert-Brohman I, Bhat S, Friesner RA (2012) Docking performance of the glide program as evaluated on the Astex and DUD datasets: a complete set of glide SP results and selected results for a new scoring function integrating WaterMap and glide. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26(6):787–799. doi:10.1007/s10822-012-9575-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tubert-Brohman I, Sherman W, Repasky M, Beuming T (2013) Improved docking of polypeptides with Glide. J Chem Inf Model 53(7):1689–1699. doi:10.1021/ci400128m

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bioluminate 2.1 (2015) Schrödinger, Inc., Portland, OR

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sastry GM, Adzhigirey M, Day T, Annabhimoju R, Sherman W (2013) Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments. J Comput Aided Mol Des 27(3):221–234. doi:10.1007/s10822-013-9644-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bas DC, Rogers DM, Jensen JH (2008) Very fast prediction and rationalization of pKa values for protein-ligand complexes. Proteins 73(3):765–783. doi:10.1002/prot.22102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ, Mainz DT, Repasky MP, Knoll EH, Shelley M, Perry JK, Shaw DE, Francis P, Shenkin PS (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47(7):1739–1749

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Friesner RA, Murphy RB, Repasky MP, Frye LL, Greenwood JR, Halgren TA, Sanschagrin PC, Mainz DT (2006) Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. J Med Chem 49(21):6177–6196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Halgren TA, Murphy RB, Friesner RA, Beard HS, Frye LL, Pollard WT, Banks JL (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem 47(7):1750–1759

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Feher M, Williams CI (2012) Numerical errors and chaotic behavior in docking simulations. J Chem Inf Model 52(3):724–738. doi:10.1021/ci200598m

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sherman W, Day T, Jacobson MP, Friesner RA, Farid R (2006) Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J Med Chem 49(2):534–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Prime 4.2 (2015) Schrödinger, Inc., Portland, OR

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kozakov D, Brenke R, Comeau SR, Vajda S (2006) PIPER: an FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials. Proteins 65(2):392–406. doi:10.1002/prot.21117

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. MacroModel v11.0 (2015) Schrödinger, Inc., Portland, OR

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kozakov D, Hall DR, Beglov D, Brenke R, Comeau SR, Shen Y, Li K, Zheng J, Vakili P, Paschalidis I, Vajda S (2010) Achieving reliability and high accuracy in automated protein docking: ClusPro, PIPER, SDU, and stability analysis in CAPRI rounds 13–19. Proteins 78(15):3124–3130. doi:10.1002/prot.22835

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Shen Y, Brenke R, Kozakov D, Comeau SR, Beglov D, Vajda S (2007) Docking with PIPER and refinement with SDU in rounds 6–11 of CAPRI. Proteins 69(4):734–742. doi:10.1002/prot.21754

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller EB, Murrett CS, Zhu K, Zhao S, Goldfeld DA, Bylund JH, Friesner RA (2013) Prediction of long loops with embedded secondary structure using the protein local optimization program. J Chem Theory Comput 9(3):1846–4864. doi:10.1021/ct301083q

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhao S, Zhu K, Li J, Friesner RA (2011) Progress in super long loop prediction. Proteins 79(10):2920–2935. doi:10.1002/prot.23129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhu K, Pincus DL, Zhao S, Friesner RA (2006) Long loop prediction using the protein local optimization program. Proteins 65:438–452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nourry C, Grant SG, Borg JP (2003) PDZ domain proteins: plug and play! Sci STKE 2003(179):RE7. doi:10.1126/stke.2003.179.re7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bell JA, Ho KL, Farid R (2012) Significant reduction in errors associated with nonbonded contacts in protein crystal structures: automated all-atom refinement with PrimeX. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 68(Pt 8):935–952. doi:10.1107/S0907444912017453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenidge PA, Kramer C, Mozziconacci JC, Sherman W (2014) Improving docking results via reranking of ensembles of ligand poses in multiple X-ray protein conformations with MM-GBSA. J Chem Inf Model 54(10):2697–2717. doi:10.1021/ci5003735

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guimaraes CR, Cardozo M (2008) MM-GB/SA rescoring of docking poses in structure-based lead optimization. J Chem Inf Model 48(5):958–970. doi:10.1021/ci800004w

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu K, Shirts MR, Friesner RA (2007) Improved methods for side chain and loop predictions via the protein local optimization program: variable dielectric model for implicitly improving the treatment of polarization effects. J Chem Theory Comput 3(6):2108–2119. doi:10.1021/ct700166f

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Li J, Abel R, Zhu K, Cao Y, Zhao S, Friesner RA (2011) The VSGB 2.0 model: a next generation energy model for high resolution protein structure modeling. Proteins 79(10):2794–2812. doi:10.1002/prot.23106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Young T, Abel R, Kim B, Berne BJ, Friesner RA (2007) Motifs for molecular recognition exploiting hydrophobic enclosure in protein ligand binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:808–813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ylilauri M, Pentikainen OT (2013) MMGBSA as a tool to understand the binding affinities of filamin-peptide interactions. J Chem Inf Model 53(10):2626–2633. doi:10.1021/ci4002475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Beard H, Cholleti A, Pearlman D, Sherman W, Loving KA (2013) Applying physics-based scoring to calculate free energies of binding for single amino acid mutations in protein-protein complexes. PLoS One 8(12):e82849. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082849

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Steinbrecher TB, Dahlgren M, Cappel D, Lin T, Wang L, Krilov G, Abel R, Friesner R, Sherman W (2015) Accurate binding free energy predictions in fragment optimization. J Chem Inf Model 55(11):2411–2420. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00538

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang L, Wu Y, Deng Y, Kim B, Pierce L, Krilov G, Lupyan D, Robinson S, Dahlgren MK, Greenwood J, Romero DL, Masse C, Knight JL, Steinbrecher T, Beuming T, Damm W, Harder E, Sherman W, Brewer M, Wester R, Murcko M, Frye L, Farid R, Lin T, Mobley DL, Jorgensen WL, Berne BJ, Friesner RA, Abel R (2015) Accurate and reliable prediction of relative ligand binding potency in prospective drug discovery by way of a modern free-energy calculation protocol and force field. J Am Chem Soc 137(7):2695–2703. doi:10.1021/ja512751q

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abel R, Young T, Farid R, Berne BJ, Friesner RA (2008) Role of the active-site solvent in the thermodynamics of factor Xa ligand binding. J Am Chem Soc 130(9):2817–2831

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Li Z, Lazaridis T (2006) Thermodynamics of buried water clusters at a protein-ligand binding interface. J Phys Chem B 110(3):1464–1475. doi:10.1021/jp056020a

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Li Z, Lazaridis T (2012) Computing the thermodynamic contributions of interfacial water. Methods Mol Biol 819:393–404. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-465-0_24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Beuming T, Farid R, Sherman W (2009) High-energy water sites determine peptide binding affinity and specificity of PDZ domains. Protein Sci 18(8):1609–1619. doi:10.1002/pro.177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Skelton NJ, Koehler MF, Zobel K, Wong WL, Yeh S, Pisabarro MT, Yin JP, Lasky LA, Sidhu SS (2003) Origins of PDZ domain ligand specificity. Structure determination and mutagenesis of the Erbin PDZ domain. J Biol Chem 278(9):7645–7654. doi:10.1074/jbc.M209751200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kolossváry I, Guida WC (1999) Low-mode conformational search elucidated. Application to C39H80 and flexible docking of 9-deazaguanine inhibitors to PNP. J Comput Chem 20:1671–1684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Harder E, Damm W, Maple J, Wu C, Reboul M, Xiang JY, Wang L, Lupyan D, Dahlgren MK, Knight JL, Kaus JW, Cerutti DS, Krilov G, Jorgensen WL, Abel R, Friesner RA (2015) OPLS3: a force field providing broad coverage of drug-like small molecules and proteins. J Chem Theory Comput. doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00864

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen IJ, Foloppe N (2010) Drug-like bioactive structures and conformational coverage with the LigPrep/ConfGen suite: comparison to programs MOE and catalyst. J Chem Inf Model 50(5):822–839. doi:10.1021/ci100026x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Watts KS, Dalal P, Murphy RB, Sherman W, Friesner RA, Shelley JC (2010) ConfGen: a conformational search method for efficient generation of bioactive conformers. J Chem Inf Model 50(4):534–546. doi:10.1021/ci100015j

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ahlbach CL, Lexa KW, Bockus AT, Chen V, Crews P, Jacobson MP, Lokey RS (2015) Beyond cyclosporine A: conformation-dependent passive membrane permeabilities of cyclic peptide natural products. Future Med Chem 7(16):2121–2130. doi:10.4155/fmc.15.78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Desmond v4.4 (2015) Schrödinger, Inc., Portland, OR

    Google Scholar 

  41. Guo Z, Mohanty U, Noehre J, Sawyer TK, Sherman W, Krilov G (2010) Probing the alpha-helical structural stability of stapled p53 peptides: molecular dynamics simulations and analysis. Chem Biol Drug Des 75(4):348–359. doi:10.1111/j.1747-0285.2010.00951.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Guo Z, Streu K, Krilov G, Mohanty U (2014) Probing the origin of structural stability of single and double stapled p53 peptide analogs bound to MDM2. Chem Biol Drug Des 83(6):631–642. doi:10.1111/cbdd.12284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhou R (2007) Replica exchange molecular dynamics method for protein folding simulation. Methods Mol Biol 350:205–223

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Karplus M, McCammon JA (2002) Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat Struct Biol 9(9):646–652. doi:10.1038/nsb0902-646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA (2004) Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Comput Chem 25(9):1157–1174. doi:10.1002/jcc.20035

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vanommeslaeghe K, Hatcher E, Acharya C, Kundu S, Zhong S, Shim J, Darian E, Guvench O, Lopes P, Vorobyov I, Mackerell AD Jr (2010) CHARMM general force field: a force field for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields. J Comput Chem 31(4):671–690. doi:10.1002/jcc.21367

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Hellberg S, Sjostrom M, Skagerberg B, Wold S (1987) Peptide quantitative structure-activity relationships, a multivariate approach. J Med Chem 30(7):1126–1135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sandberg M, Eriksson L, Jonsson J, Sjostrom M, Wold S (1998) New chemical descriptors relevant for the design of biologically active peptides. A multivariate characterization of 87 amino acids. J Med Chem 41(14):2481–2491. doi:10.1021/jm9700575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tian F, Lv F, Zhou P, Yang Q, Jalbout AF (2008) Toward prediction of binding affinities between the MHC protein and its peptide ligands using quantitative structure-affinity relationship approach. Protein Pept Lett 15(10):1033–1043

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. He R, Ma H, Zhao W, Qu W, Zhao J, Luo L, Zhu W (2012) Modeling the QSAR of ACE-inhibitory peptides with ANN and its applied illustration. Int J Pept 2012:620609. doi:10.1155/2012/620609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Canvas v2.5 (2015) Schrödinger, Inc., Portland, OR

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schrödinger, Inc., 120 West 45th Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY, 10036, USA

    Jas Bhachoo & Thijs Beuming

Authors
  1. Jas Bhachoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thijs Beuming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thijs Beuming .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel

    Ora Schueler-Furman

  2. Organic Chemistry, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    Nir London

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Bhachoo, J., Beuming, T. (2017). Investigating Protein–Peptide Interactions Using the Schrödinger Computational Suite. In: Schueler-Furman, O., London, N. (eds) Modeling Peptide-Protein Interactions. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1561. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6798-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6798-8_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6796-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6798-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation