Abstract
Networks of protein–protein interactions (PPI) constitute either stable or transient complexes in every cell. Most of the cellular complexes keep their function, and therefore stay similar, during evolution. The evolutionary constraints preserve most cellular functions via preservation of protein structures and interactions. The evolutionary conservation information is utilized in template-based approaches, like protein structure modeling or docking. Here we use the combination of the template-free docking method with conservation-based selection of the best docking model using our newly developed COZOID tool.
We describe a step-by-step protocol for visual selection of docking models, based on their similarity to the original protein complex structure. Using the COZOID tool, we first analyze contact zones of the original complex structure and select contact amino acids for docking restraints. Then we model and dock the homologous proteins. Finally, we utilize different analytical modes of our COZOID tool to select the docking models most similar to the original complex structure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Huang SY (2014) Search strategies and evaluation in protein-protein docking: principles, advances and challenges. Drug Discov Today 19:1081–1096
Jiménez-García B, Pons C, Fernández-Recio J (2013) pyDockWEB: a web server for rigid-body protein-protein docking using electrostatics and desolvation scoring. Bioinformatics 29:1698–1699
Kundrotas PJ, Zhu Z, Janin J, Vakser IA (2012) Templates are available to model nearly all complexes of structurally characterized proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:9438–9441
Das J et al. (2013) Cross-species protein interactome mapping reveals species-specific wiring of stress response pathways. Sci Signal 6:ra38
Valdar WS, Thornton JM (2001) Protein-protein interfaces: analysis of amino acid conservation in homodimers. Proteins 42:108–124
Mintseris J, Weng Z (2005) Structure, function, and evolution of transient and obligate protein-protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:10930–10935
Caffrey DR, Somaroo S, Hughes JD, Mintseris J, Huang ES (2004) Are protein-protein interfaces more conserved in sequence than the rest of the protein surface? Protein Sci 13:190–202
Vo TV et al. (2016) A proteome-wide fission yeast interactome reveals network evolution principles from yeasts to human. Cell 164:310–323
Gandhi TK et al. (2006) Analysis of the human protein interactome and comparison with yeast, worm and fly interaction datasets. Nat Genet 38:285–293
Levy ED, Boeri Erba E, Robinson CV, Teichmann SA (2008) Assembly reflects evolution of protein complexes. Nature 453:1262–1265
Dey S, Ritchie DW, Levy ED (2018) PDB-wide identification of biological assemblies from conserved quaternary structure geometry. Nat Methods 15:67–72
Yu H et al. (2004) Annotation transfer between genomes: protein-protein interologs and protein-DNA regulogs. Genome Res 14:1107–1118
Andreani J, Guerois R (2014) Evolution of protein interactions: from interactomes to interfaces. Arch Biochem Biophys 554:65–75
Hopf TA et al. (2014) Sequence co-evolution gives 3D contacts and structures of protein complexes. Elife 3
Furmanová K et al. (2018) COZOID: contact zone identifier for visual analysis of protein-protein interactions. BMC Bioinformatics 19:125
Palecek JJ, Gruber S (2015) Kite proteins: a superfamily of SMC/Kleisin partners conserved across Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes. Structure 23:2183–2190
Doyle JM, Gao J, Wang J, Yang M, Potts PR (2010) MAGE-RING protein complexes comprise a family of E3 ubiquitin ligases. Mol Cell 39:963–974
Zabrady K et al. (2016) Chromatin association of the SMC5/6 complex is dependent on binding of its NSE3 subunit to DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 44:1064–1079
Hudson JJ et al. (2011) Interactions between the Nse3 and Nse4 components of the SMC5-6 complex identify evolutionarily conserved interactions between MAGE and EID families. PLoS One 6:e17270
Mayrose D, Graur N, Ben-Tal N, Pupko T (2004) Comparison of site-specific rate-inference methods for protein sequences: empirical Bayesian methods are superior. Mol Biol Evol 21:1781–1791
Zhang Y (2008) I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 9(40)
Acknowledgments
Internal Masaryk University grant (MU/0822/2015) and the Czech MEYS ‐ Projects CEITEC 2020 (LQ1601) are acknowledged for their financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Byska, J., Jurcik, A., Furmanova, K., Kozlikova, B., Palecek, J.J. (2020). Visual Analysis of Protein–Protein Interaction Docking Models Using COZOID Tool. In: Canzar, S., Ringeling, F. (eds) Protein-Protein Interaction Networks. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2074. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9873-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9873-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-9872-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-9873-9
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols