Abstract
Protein–protein interactions (PPIs) are responsible for a number of key physiological processes in the living cells and underlie the pathomechanism of many diseases. Nowadays, along with the concept of so-called “hot spots” in protein–protein interactions, which are well-defined interface regions responsible for most of the binding energy, these interfaces can be targeted with modulators. In order to apply structure-based design techniques to design PPIs modulators, a three-dimensional structure of protein complex has to be available. In this context in silico approaches, in particular protein–protein docking, are a valuable complement to experimental methods for elucidating 3D structure of protein complexes. Protein–protein docking is easy to use and does not require significant computer resources and time (in contrast to molecular dynamics) and it results in 3D structure of a protein complex (in contrast to sequence-based methods of predicting binding interfaces). However, protein–protein docking cannot address all the aspects of protein dynamics, in particular the global conformational changes during protein complex formation. In spite of this fact, protein–protein docking is widely used to model complexes of water-soluble proteins and less commonly to predict structures of transmembrane protein assemblies, including dimers and oligomers of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). In this chapter we review the principles of protein–protein docking, available algorithms and software and discuss the recent examples, benefits, and drawbacks of protein–protein docking application to water-soluble proteins, membrane anchoring and transmembrane proteins, including GPCRs.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Andreani J, Guerois R (2014) Evolution of protein interactions: from interactomes to interfaces. Arch Biochem Biophys 554:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abb.2014.05.010
Petta I, Lievens S, Libert C et al (2016) Modulation of protein-protein interactions for the development of novel therapeutics. Mol Ther J Am Soc Gene Ther 24:707–718. https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2015.214
Gromiha MM, Yugandhar K, Jemimah S (2016) Protein-protein interactions: scoring schemes and binding affinity. Curr Opin Struct Biol 44:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2016.10.016
Moal IH, Moretti R, Baker D, Fernández-Recio J (2013) Scoring functions for protein-protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 23:862–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2013.06.017
Huang S-Y (2015) Exploring the potential of global protein-protein docking: an overview and critical assessment of current programs for automatic ab initio docking. Drug Discov Today 20:969–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2015.03.007
Rodrigues JPGLM, Bonvin AMJJ (2014) Integrative computational modeling of protein interactions. FEBS J 281:1988–2003. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.12771
Selent J, Kaczor AA (2011) Oligomerization of G protein-coupled receptors: computational methods. Curr Med Chem 18:4588–4605
Kaczor AA, Selent J, Poso A (2013) Structure-based molecular modeling approaches to GPCR oligomerization. Methods Cell Biol 117:91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-408143-7.00005-0
Kuntz ID, Blaney JM, Oatley SJ et al (1982) A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 161:269–288
Wodak SJ, Janin J (1978) Computer analysis of protein-protein interaction. J Mol Biol 124:323–342
Janin J (2010) Protein-protein docking tested in blind predictions: the CAPRI experiment. Mol Biosyst 6:2351–2362. https://doi.org/10.1039/c005060c
Lensink MF, Wodak SJ (2013) Docking, scoring, and affinity prediction in CAPRI. Proteins 81:2082–2095. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.24428
Lensink MF, Velankar S, Wodak SJ (2017) Modeling protein-protein and protein-peptide complexes: CAPRI 6th edition. Proteins 85:359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.25215
Bohnuud T, Luo L, Wodak SJ et al (2017) A benchmark testing ground for integrating homology modeling and protein docking. Proteins 85:10–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.25063
Park H, Lee H, Seok C (2015) High-resolution protein-protein docking by global optimization: recent advances and future challenges. Curr Opin Struct Biol 35:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2015.08.001
Kaczor AA, Selent J, Sanz F, Pastor M (2013) Modeling complexes of transmembrane proteins: systematic analysis of protein-protein docking tools. Mol Inform 32:717–733. https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.201200150
Zacharias M (2010) Accounting for conformational changes during protein-protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 20:180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2010.02.001
Zacharias M (2003) Protein-protein docking with a reduced protein model accounting for side-chain flexibility. Protein Sci Publ Protein Soc 12:1271–1282. https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.0239303
Schneidman-Duhovny D, Inbar Y, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ (2005) PatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking. Nucleic Acids Res 33:W363–W367. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gki481
Gabb HA, Jackson RM, Sternberg MJ (1997) Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. J Mol Biol 272:106–120. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1997.1203
Vakser IA (1997) Evaluation of GRAMM low-resolution docking methodology on the hemagglutinin-antibody complex. Proteins (Suppl 1):226–230
Tovchigrechko A, Vakser IA (2006) GRAMM-X public web server for protein-protein docking. Nucleic Acids Res 34:W310–W314. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl206
Katchalski-Katzir E, Shariv I, Eisenstein M et al (1992) Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89:2195–2199
Berchanski A, Shapira B, Eisenstein M (2004) Hydrophobic complementarity in protein-protein docking. Proteins 56:130–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20145
Heifetz A, Katchalski-Katzir E, Eisenstein M (2002) Electrostatics in protein-protein docking. Protein Sci Publ Protein Soc 11:571–587
Mandell JG, Roberts VA, Pique ME et al (2001) Protein docking using continuum electrostatics and geometric fit. Protein Eng 14:105–113
Roberts VA, Thompson EE, Pique ME et al (2013) DOT2: macromolecular docking with improved biophysical models. J Comput Chem 34:1743–1758. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.23304
Wiehe K, Pierce B, Mintseris J et al (2005) ZDOCK and RDOCK performance in CAPRI rounds 3, 4, and 5. Proteins 60:207–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20559
Kozakov D, Brenke R, Comeau SR, Vajda S (2006) PIPER: an FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials. Proteins 65:392–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21117
Zhang C, Lai L (2011) SDOCK: a global protein-protein docking program using stepwise force-field potentials. J Comput Chem 32:2598–2612. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21839
Comeau SR, Gatchell DW, Vajda S, Camacho CJ (2004) ClusPro: a fully automated algorithm for protein-protein docking. Nucleic Acids Res 32:W96–W99. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh354
Comeau SR, Kozakov D, Brenke R et al (2007) ClusPro: performance in CAPRI rounds 6-11 and the new server. Proteins 69:781–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21795
Ritchie DW (2003) Evaluation of protein docking predictions using Hex 3.1 in CAPRI rounds 1 and 2. Proteins 52:98–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10379
Garzon JI, Lopéz-Blanco JR, Pons C et al (2009) FRODOCK: a new approach for fast rotational protein-protein docking. Bioinformatics 25:2544–2551. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp447
Dominguez C, Boelens R, Bonvin AMJJ (2003) HADDOCK: a protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. J Am Chem Soc 125:1731–1737. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja026939x
de Vries SJ, van Dijk ADJ, Krzeminski M et al (2007) HADDOCK versus HADDOCK: new features and performance of HADDOCK2.0 on the CAPRI targets. Proteins 69:726–733. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21723
Hwang H, Vreven T, Janin J, Weng Z (2010) Protein-protein docking benchmark version 4.0. Proteins 78:3111–3114. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.22830
Vajda S (2005) Classification of protein complexes based on docking difficulty. Proteins 60:176–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20554
Selent J, Kaczor AA, Guixà-González R et al (2013) Rational design of the survivin/CDK4 complex by combining protein-protein docking and molecular dynamics simulations. J Mol Model 19:1507–1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-012-1705-8
Renthal R (1999) Transmembrane and water-soluble helix bundles display reverse patterns of surface roughness. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:714–717. https://doi.org/10.1006/bbrc.1999.1439
Kaczor AA, Guixà-González R, Carrió P et al (2012) Fractal dimension as a measure of surface roughness of G protein-coupled receptors: implications for structure and function. J Mol Model 18:4465–4475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-012-1431-2
Suzuki Y (2017) Predicting receptor functionality of signaling lymphocyte activation molecule for measles virus hemagglutinin from docking simulation. Microbiol Immunol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1348-0421.12484
Dar HA, Zaheer T, Paracha RZ, Ali A (2017) Structural analysis and insight into Zika virus NS5 mediated interferon inhibition. Infect Genet Evol 51:143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2017.03.027
Antal Z, Szoverfi J, Fejer SN (2017) Predicting the initial steps of salt-stable cowpea chlorotic mottle virus capsid assembly with atomistic force fields. J Chem Inf Model 57:910–917. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00078
Hossain MS, Azad AK, Chowdhury PA, Wakayama M (2017) Computational identification and characterization of a promiscuous T-cell epitope on the extracellular protein 85B of mycobacterium spp. for peptide-based subunit vaccine design. Biomed Res Int 2017:4826030. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4826030
He Y, Xiang Z, Mobley HLT (2010) Vaxign: the first web-based vaccine design program for reverse vaccinology and applications for vaccine development. J Biomed Biotechnol 2010:297505. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/297505
Totrov M, Abagyan R (1997) Flexible protein-ligand docking by global energy optimization in internal coordinates. Proteins (Suppl 1):215–220
Rawal L, Panwar D, Ali S (2017) Intermolecular interactions between DMα and DMβ proteins in BuLA-DM complex of water buffalo Bubalus bubalis. J Cell Biochem. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.26075
Dundas J, Ouyang Z, Tseng J et al (2006) CASTp: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins with structural and topographical mapping of functionally annotated residues. Nucleic Acids Res 34:W116–W118. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl282
Krissinel E, Henrick K (2007) Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline state. J Mol Biol 372:774–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2007.05.022
Sinha VK, Sharma OP, Kumar MS (2017) Insight into the intermolecular recognition mechanism involved in complement component 4 activation through serine protease-trypsin. J Biomol Struct Dyn:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07391102.2017.1288658
Prakash P, Sayyed-Ahmad A, Cho KJ et al (2017) Computational and biochemical characterization of two partially overlapping interfaces and multiple weak-affinity K-Ras dimers. Sci Rep 7:40109. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40109
Congreve M, Langmead CJ, Mason JS, Marshall FH (2011) Progress in structure based drug design for G protein-coupled receptors. J Med Chem 54:4283–4311. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm200371q
Pierce KL, Premont RT, Lefkowitz RJ (2002) Seven-transmembrane receptors. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 3:639–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm908
Gilman AG (1987) G proteins: transducers of receptor-generated signals. Annu Rev Biochem 56:615–649. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.56.1.615
Bouvier M (2001) Oligomerization of G-protein-coupled transmitter receptors. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:274–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/35067575
Ferre S, Casado V, Devi LA et al (2014) G protein-coupled receptor oligomerization revisited: functional and pharmacological perspectives. Pharmacol Rev 66:413–434. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.113.008052
González-Maeso J (2011) GPCR oligomers in pharmacology and signaling. Mol Brain 4:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-6606-4-20
Kniazeff J, Prézeau L, Rondard P et al (2011) Dimers and beyond: the functional puzzles of class C GPCRs. Pharmacol Ther 130:9–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2011.01.006
Bellot M, Galandrin S, Boularan C et al (2015) Dual agonist occupancy of AT1-R-α2C-AR heterodimers results in atypical Gs-PKA signaling. Nat Chem Biol 11:271–279. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.1766
Rashid AJ, So CH, Kong MMC et al (2007) D1–D2 dopamine receptor heterooligomers with unique pharmacology are coupled to rapid activation of Gq/11 in the striatum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:654–659. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604049104
Han Y, Moreira IS, Urizar E et al (2009) Allosteric communication between protomers of dopamine class A GPCR dimers modulates activation. Nat Chem Biol 5:688–695. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.199
Smith NJ, Milligan G (2010) Allostery at G protein-coupled receptor homo- and heteromers: uncharted pharmacological landscapes. Pharmacol Rev 62:701–725. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.110.002667
Bouvier M, Hébert TE (2014) CrossTalk proposal: weighing the evidence for class A GPCR dimers, the evidence favours dimers. J Physiol 592:2439–2441. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2014.272252
Lambert NA, Javitch JA (2014) CrossTalk opposing view: weighing the evidence for class A GPCR dimers, the jury is still out. J Physiol 592:2443–2445. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2014.272997
James JR, Oliveira MI, Carmo AM et al (2006) A rigorous experimental framework for detecting protein oligomerization using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer. Nat Methods 3:1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth978
Meyer BH, Segura J-M, Martinez KL et al (2006) FRET imaging reveals that functional neurokinin-1 receptors are monomeric and reside in membrane microdomains of live cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:2138–2143. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507686103
Gaitonde SA, Gonzá Lez-Maeso J (2017) Contribution of heteromerization to G protein-coupled receptor function. Curr Opin Pharmacol 32:23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2016.10.006
Guidolin D, Agnati LF, Marcoli M et al (2014) G-protein-coupled receptor type A heteromers as an emerging therapeutic target. Expert Opin Ther Targets 8222:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1517/14728222.2014.981155
Shonberg J, Scammells PJ, Capuano B (2011) Design strategies for bivalent ligands targeting GPCRs. ChemMedChem 6:963–974. https://doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.201100101
Viñals X, Moreno E, Lanfumey L et al (2015) Cognitive impairment induced by delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol occurs through heteromers between cannabinoid CB1 and serotonin 5-HT2A receptors. PLoS Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002194
Jastrzebska B, Chen Y, Orban T et al (2015) Disruption of rhodopsin dimerization with synthetic peptides targeting an interaction interface. J Biol Chem 290:25728–25744. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M115.662684
Wang J, He L, Combs C et al (2006) Dimerization of CXCR4 in living malignant cells: control of cell migration by a synthetic peptide that reduces homologous CXCR4 interactions. Mol Cancer Ther 5:2474–2483. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-05-0261
Hebert TE, Moffett S, Morello JP et al (1996) A peptide derived from a beta2-adrenergic receptor transmembrane domain inhibits both receptor dimerization and activation. J Biol Chem 271:16384–16392. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.271.27.16384
Khelashvili G, Dorff K, Shan J et al (2010) GPCR-OKB: the G protein coupled receptor oligomer knowledge base. Bioinformatics 26:1804–1805. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq264
Kufareva I, Katritch V, Participants of GPCR Dock 2013, Stevens RC, Abagyan R (2014) Advances in GPCR modeling evaluated by the GPCR Dock 2013 assessment: meeting new challenges. Structure 22:1120–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2014.06.012
Casciari D, Seeber M, Fanelli F (2006) Quaternary structure predictions of transmembrane proteins starting from the monomer: a docking-based approach. BMC Bioinformatics 7:340. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-340
Dell’Orco D, Casciari D, Fanelli F (2008) Quaternary structure predictions and estimation of mutational effects on the free energy of dimerization of the OMPLA protein. J Struct Biol 163:155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2008.05.006
Kaczor AA, Guixà-González R, Carriõ P et al (2015) Multi-component protein – protein docking based protocol with external scoring for modeling dimers of g protein-coupled receptors. Mol Inform 34:246–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.201400088
Chaudhury S, Berrondo M, Weitzner BD et al (2011) Benchmarking and analysis of protein docking performance in Rosetta v3.2. PLoS One 6:e22477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022477
Jörg M, Kaczor AA, Mak FS et al (2014) Investigation of novel ropinirole analogues: synthesis, pharmacological evaluation and computational analysis of dopamine D2 receptor functionalized congeners and homobivalent ligands. MedChemComm 5:891–898. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4MD00066H
Kaczor AA, Jörg M, Capuano B (2016) The dopamine D2 receptor dimer and its interaction with homobivalent antagonists: homology modeling, docking and molecular dynamics. J Mol Model 22:203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-016-3065-2
Viswanath S, Dominguez L, Foster LS et al (2015) Extension of a protein docking algorithm to membranes and applications to amyloid precursor protein dimerization. Proteins 83:2170–2185. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.24934
MacCallum JL, Bennett WFD, Tieleman DP (2007) Partitioning of amino acid side chains into lipid bilayers: results from computer simulations and comparison to experiment. J Gen Physiol 129:371–377. https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.200709745
Alford RF, Koehler Leman J, Weitzner BD et al (2015) An integrated framework advancing membrane protein modeling and design. PLoS Comput Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004398
Hurwitz N, Schneidman-Duhovny D, Wolfson HJ (2016) Memdock: an α-helical membrane protein docking algorithm. Bioinformatics 32:2444–2450. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw184
Guixà-González R, Javanainen M, Gómez-Soler M et al (2016) Membrane omega-3 fatty acids modulate the oligomerisation kinetics of adenosine A2A and dopamine D2 receptors. Sci Rep 6:19839. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19839
Tusnády GE, Dosztányi Z, Simon I (2005) TMDET: web server for detecting transmembrane regions of proteins by using their 3D coordinates. Bioinformatics 21:1276–1277. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti121
Acknowledgments
The chapter was developed using the equipment purchased within the project “The equipment of innovative laboratories doing research on new medicines used in the therapy of civilization and neoplastic diseases” within the Operational Program Development of Eastern Poland 2007–2013, Priority Axis I Modern Economy, operations I.3 Innovation promotion. T.S. and J.S. acknowledge support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III FEDER (CP12/03139 and PI15/00460). A.A.K., T.S. and J.S. participate in the European COST Action CM1207 (GLISTEN). T.S. acknowledges financial support from Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Kaczor, A.A., Bartuzi, D., Stępniewski, T.M., Matosiuk, D., Selent, J. (2018). Protein–Protein Docking in Drug Design and Discovery. In: Gore, M., Jagtap, U. (eds) Computational Drug Discovery and Design. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1762. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7756-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7756-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-7755-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-7756-7
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols