A Multiscale Computational Model for Simulating the Kinetics of Protein Complex Assembly

  • Jiawen Chen
  • Yinghao Wu
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1764)


Proteins fulfill versatile biological functions by interacting with each other and forming high-order complexes. Although the order in which protein subunits assemble is important for the biological function of their final complex, this kinetic information has received comparatively little attention in recent years. Here we describe a multiscale framework that can be used to simulate the kinetics of protein complex assembly. There are two levels of models in the framework. The structural details of a protein complex are reflected by the residue-based model, while a lower-resolution model uses a rigid-body (RB) representation to simulate the process of complex assembly. These two levels of models are integrated together, so that we are able to provide the kinetic information about complex assembly with both structural details and computational efficiency.

Key words

Protein complex assembly Multiscale modeling Coarse-grained simulation Protein association rate Kinetic Monte Carlo Diffusion-reaction algorithm 



This work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (Grant No. R01GM120238) and a start-up grant from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.


  1. 1.
    Ali MH, Imperiali B (2005) Protein oligomerization: how and why. Bioorg Med Chem 13(17):5013–5020. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levy ED, Teichmann S (2013) Structural, evolutionary, and assembly principles of protein oligomerization. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 117:25–51. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marsh JA, Hernandez H, Hall Z, Ahnert SE, Perica T, Robinson CV, Teichmann SA (2013) Protein complexes are under evolutionary selection to assemble via ordered pathways. Cell 153(2):461–470. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levy ED, Boeri Erba E, Robinson CV, Teichmann SA (2008) Assembly reflects evolution of protein complexes. Nature 453(7199):1262–1265. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellis RJ (2007) Protein misassembly: macromolecular crowding and molecular chaperones. Adv Exp Med Biol 594:1–13. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gabdoulline RR, Wade RC (2002) Biomolecular diffusional association. Curr Opin Struct Biol 12(2):204–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhou HX (2010) Rate theories for biologists. Q Rev Biophys 43(2):219–293. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Picco A, Irastorza-Azcarate I, Specht T, Boke D, Pazos I, Rivier-Cordey AS, Devos DP, Kaksonen M, Gallego O (2017) The in vivo architecture of the exocyst provides structural basis for exocytosis. Cell 168(3):400–412. e418. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gilmore BL, Winton CE, Demmert AC, Tanner JR, Bowman S, Karageorge V, Patel K, Sheng Z, Kelly DF (2015) A molecular toolkit to visualize native protein assemblies in the context of human disease. Sci Rep 5:14440. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heck AJ (2008) Native mass spectrometry: a bridge between interactomics and structural biology. Nat Methods 5(11):927–933. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wieczorek G, Zielenkiewicz P (2008) Influence of macromolecular crowding on protein-protein association rates--a Brownian dynamics study. Biophys J 95(11):5030–5036. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ermakova E (2005) Lysozyme dimerization: Brownian dynamics simulation. J Mol Model 12(1):34–41. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forlemu NY, Njabon EN, Carlson KL, Schmidt ES, Waingeh VF, Thomasson KA (2011) Ionic strength dependence of F-actin and glycolytic enzyme associations: a Brownian dynamics simulations approach. Proteins 79(10):2813–2827. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Long H, Chang CH, King PW, Ghirardi ML, Kim K (2008) Brownian dynamics and molecular dynamics study of the association between hydrogenase and ferredoxin from Chlamydomonas Reinhardtii. Biophys J 95(8):3753–3766. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frembgen-Kesner T, Elcock AH (2010) Absolute protein-protein association rate constants from flexible, coarse-grained Brownian dynamics simulations: the role of intermolecular hydrodynamic interactions in barnase-barstar association. Biophys J 99(9):L75–L77. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zimmer MJ, Geyer T (2012) Do we have to explicitly model the ions in brownian dynamics simulations of proteins? J Chem Phys 136(12):125102. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dlugosz M, Huber GA, McCammon JA, Trylska J (2011) Brownian dynamics study of the association between the 70S ribosome and elongation factor G. Biopolymers 95(9):616–627. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huber GA, Kim S (1996) Weighted-ensemble Brownian dynamics simulations for protein association reactions. Biophys J 70(1):97–110. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rojnuckarin A, Livesay DR, Subramaniam S (2000) Bimolecular reaction simulation using weighted ensemble Brownian dynamics and the University of Houston Brownian Dynamics program. Biophys J 79(2):686–693. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zou G, Skeel RD (2003) Robust biased Brownian dynamics for rate constant calculation. Biophys J 85(4):2147–2157. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou HX (1993) Brownian dynamics study of the influences of electrostatic interaction and diffusion on protein-protein association kinetics. Biophys J 64(6):1711–1726. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Northrup SH, Erickson HP (1992) Kinetics of protein-protein association explained by Brownian dynamics computer simulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89(8):3338–3342CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merlitz H, Rippe K, Klenin KV, Langowski J (1998) Looping dynamics of linear DNA molecules and the effect of DNA curvature: a study by Brownian dynamics simulation. Biophys J 74(2 Pt 1):773–779. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mereghetti P, Gabdoulline RR, Wade RC (2010) Brownian dynamics simulation of protein solutions: structural and dynamical properties. Biophys J 99(11):3782–3791. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lin J, Beratan DN (2005) Simulation of electron transfer between cytochrome C2 and the bacterial photosynthetic reaction center: Brownian dynamics analysis of the native proteins and double mutants. J Phys Chem B 109(15):7529–7534. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Rienzo F, Gabdoulline RR, Menziani MC, De Benedetti PG, Wade RC (2001) Electrostatic analysis and Brownian dynamics simulation of the association of plastocyanin and cytochrome f. Biophys J 81(6):3090–3104. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haddadian EJ, Gross EL (2006) A Brownian dynamics study of the interactions of the luminal domains of the cytochrome b6f complex with plastocyanin and cytochrome c6: the effects of the Rieske FeS protein on the interactions. Biophys J 91(7):2589–2600. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hattne J, Fange D, Elf J (2005) Stochastic reaction-diffusion simulation with MesoRD. Bioinformatics 21(12):2923–2924. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ander M, Beltrao P, Di Ventura B, Ferkinghoff-Borg J, Foglierini M, Kaplan A, Lemerle C, Tomas-Oliveira I, Serrano L (2004) SmartCell, a framework to simulate cellular processes that combines stochastic approximation with diffusion and localisation: analysis of simple networks. Syst Biol (Stevenage) 1(1):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rodriguez JV, Kaandorp JA, Dobrzynski M, Blom JG (2006) Spatial stochastic modelling of the phosphoenolpyruvate-dependent phosphotransferase (PTS) pathway in Escherichia Coli. Bioinformatics 22(15):1895–1901. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stiles J, Bartol TM (2001) Monte Carlo methods for simulating realistic synaptic microphysiology using MCell. Computational Neuroscience:87–127Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andrews SS, Bray D (2004) Stochastic simulation of chemical reactions with spatial resolution and single molecule detail. Phys Biol 1(3–4):137–151. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ridgway D, Broderick G, Lopez-Campistrous A, Ru'aini M, Winter P, Hamilton M, Boulanger P, Kovalenko A, Ellison MJ (2008) Coarse-grained molecular simulation of diffusion and reaction kinetics in a crowded virtual cytoplasm. Biophys J 94(10):3748–3759. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frazier Z, Alber F (2012) A computational approach to increase time scales in Brownian dynamics-based reaction-diffusion modeling. J Comput Biol 19(6):606–618. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee B, LeDuc PR, Schwartz R (2008) Stochastic off-lattice modeling of molecular self-assembly in crowded environments by Green's function reaction dynamics. Phys Rev E 78(3).
  36. 36.
    Xie ZR, Chen J, Wu Y (2016) Multiscale model for the assembly kinetics of protein complexes. J Phys Chem B 120(4):621–632. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aragon S (2004) A precise boundary element method for macromolecular transport properties. J Comput Chem 25(9):1191–1205. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aragon S, Hahn DK (2006) Precise boundary element computation of protein transport properties: diffusion tensors, specific volume, and hydration. Biophys J 91(5):1591–1603. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xie ZR, Chen J, Wu Y (2017) Predicting protein-protein association rates using coarse-grained simulation and machine learning. Sci Rep 7:46622. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hills RD Jr, Brooks CL 3rd (2009) Insights from coarse-grained go models for protein folding and dynamics. Int J Mol Sci 10(3):889–905. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim YC, Hummer G (2008) Coarse-grained models for simulations of multiprotein complexes: application to ubiquitin binding. J Mol Biol 375(5):1416–1433. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ravikumar KM, Huang W, Yang S (2012) Coarse-grained simulations of protein-protein association: an energy landscape perspective. Biophys J 103(4):837–845. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kyte J, Doolittle RF (1982) A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. J Mol Biol 157(1):105–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xie Z-R, Chen J, Wu Y (2014) A coarse-grained model for the simulations of biomolecular interactions in cellular environments. J Chem Phys 140:054112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Su Y, Zhou A, Xia X, Li W, Sun Z (2009) Quantitative prediction of protein-protein binding affinity with a potential of mean force considering volume correction. Protein Sci 18(12):2550–2558. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xiong P, Zhang C, Zheng W, Zhang Y (2017) BindProfX: assessing mutation-induced binding affinity change by protein Interface profiles with pseudo-counts. J Mol Biol 429(3):426–434. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Atilgan AR, Durell SR, Jernigan RL, Demirel MC, Keskin O, Bahar I (2001) Anisotropy of fluctuation dynamics of proteins with an elastic network model. Biophys J 80(1):505–515CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Systems and Computational BiologyAlbert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations