Advertisement

Axiomathes

pp 1–18 | Cite as

Computational Construction of the Reality: Abstraction and Exploration-Driven Strategies in Constructing Protein–Protein Interfaces

  • Sim-Hui TeeEmail author
Original Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Computational modeling is one of the primary approaches to constructing protein–protein interfaces in the laboratory. The algorithm-driven computational protein design has been successfully applied to the construction of functional proteins with improved binding affinity and increased thermostability. It is intriguing how a computational protein modeling approach can construct and shape the reality of new functional proteins from scratch. I articulate an account of abstraction and exploration-driven strategies in this computational endeavor. I aim to show that how a computational modelling approach, which is laden with mathematics and algorithms, can have a constructive force on the target protein.

Keywords

Models Abstraction Exploratory experimentation Computer models Simulation Protein Construction 

References

  1. Agapito G, Guzzi PH, Cannataro M (2013) Visualization of protein interaction networks: problems and solutions. BMC Bioinform 14(Suppl 1):S1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ankeny R (2009) Model organisms as fictions. In: Suárez M (ed) Fictions in science: philosophical essays on modeling and idealization. Routledge, New York, pp 193–204Google Scholar
  3. Baetu TM (2012) Genes after the human genome project. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barberousse A, Franceschelli S, Imbert C (2009) Computer simulations as experiments. Synthese 169:557–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer S (2008) Mining data, gathering variables and recombining information: the flexible architecture of epidemiological studies. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 39:415–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brüschweiler R (2003) New approaches to the dynamic interpretation and prediction of NMR relaxation data from proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 13:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bueno O (2014) Computer simulation: an inferential conception. The Monist 97(3):378–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burian RM (1997) Exploratory experimentation and the role of histochemical techniques in the work of Jean Brachet, 1938-1952. Hist Philos Life Sci 19:27–45Google Scholar
  9. Burian RM (2007) On microRNA and the need for exploratory experimentation in post-genomic molecular biology. Hist Philos Life Sci 29(3):285–311Google Scholar
  10. Chen R, Zhang Z, Wu D, Zhang P, Zhang X, Wang Y, Shi Y (2011) Prediction of protein interaction hot spots using rough set-based multiple criteria linear programming. J Theor Biol 269:174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahiyat BI, Mayo SL (1997) De novo protein design: fully automated sequence selection. Science 278:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott KC (2007) Varieties of exploratory experimentation in nanotoxicology. Hist Philos Life Sci 29(3):313–336Google Scholar
  13. Fersht AR (2008) From the first protein structures to our current knowledge of protein folding: delights and scepticisms. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9(8):650–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin LR (2005) Exploratory experiments. Philos Sci 72(5):888–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. García P, Velasco M (2013) Exploratory strategies: experiments and simulations. In: Durán JM, Arnold E (eds) Computer simulations and the changing face of scientific experimentation. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, pp 99–116Google Scholar
  16. Gfeller D (2012) Uncovering new aspects of protein interactions through analysis of specificity landscapes in peptide recognition domains. FEBS Lett 586:2764–2772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giere RN (2012) Representing with physical models. In: Humphreys P, Imbert C (eds) Models, simulations, and representations. Routledge, New York, pp 209–215Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein RF (1994) Efficient rotamer elimination applied to protein side-chains and related spin glasses. Biophys J 66(5):1335–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray JJ (2006) High-resolution protein-protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guala F (2002) Models, simulations and experiments. In: Magnani L, Nersessian NJ (eds) Models-based reasoning: science, technology, values. Springer, New York, pp 59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartenfeller M, Schneider G (2011) De novo drug design. Methods Mol Biol 672:299–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Havranek JJ, Harbury PB (2002) Automated design of specificity in molecular recognition. Nat Struct Mol Biol 10(1):45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang P-S, Love JJ, Mayo SL (2007) A de novo designed protein-protein interface. Protein Sci 16(12):2770–2774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang PS, Boyken SE, Baker D (2016) The coming of age of de novo protein design. Nature 537(7620):320–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeanquartier F, Jean-Quartier C, Holzinger A (2015) Integrated web visualization for protein-protein interaction databases. BMC Bioinform 16(1):195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karaca K (2013) The strong and weak senses of theory-ladenness of experimentation: theory-driven versus exploratory experiments in the history of high-energy particle physics. Sci Context 26(1):93–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karaca K (2017) A case study in experimental exploration: exploratory data selection at the Large Hadron Collider. Synthese 194:333–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karanicolas J, Kuhlman B (2009) Computational design of affinity and specificity at protein-protein interfaces. Curr Opin Struct Biol 19:458–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keating P, Cambrosio A (2012) Too many numbers: microarrays in clinical cancer research. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kell DB, Oliver SG (2004) Here is the evidence, now what is the hypothesis? The complementary roles of inductive and hypothesis-driven science in the post-genomic era. BioEssays 26(1):99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kessel A, Ben-Tal N (2011) Introduction to proteins: structure, function, and motion. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  32. Klepeis JL, Lindorff-Larsen K, Dror RO, Shaw DE (2009) Long-timescale molecular dynamics simulations of protein structure and function. Curr Opin Struct Biol 19:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kmiecik S, Gront D, Kolinski M, Wieteska L, Dawid AE, Kolinski A (2016) Coarse-grained protein models and their applications. Chem Rev 116:7898–7936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knuuttila T, Boon M (2011) How do models give us knowledge? The case of Carnot’s ideal heat engine. Eur J Philos Sci 1:309–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krohs U (2012) Convenience experimentation. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43:52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee D, Redfern O, Orengo C (2007) Predicting protein function from sequence and structure. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8:995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lenhard J (2007) Computer simulation: the cooperation between experimenting and modeling. Philos Sci 74(2):176–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leonelli S (2011) Packaging small facts for re-use: databases in model organism biology. In: Howlett P, Morgan MS (eds) How well do facts travel? The dissemination of reliable knowledge. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 325–348Google Scholar
  39. Leonelli S (2013) Integrating data to acquire new knowledge: three modes of integration in plant science. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44:503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leonelli S, Ankeny RA (2012) Re-thinking organisms: the impact of databases on model organism biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lusk G (2016) Computer simulation and the features of novel empirical data. Stud Hist Philos Sci 56:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2013a) Coupling simulation and experiment: the bimodal strategy in integrative systems biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44:572–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2013b) Building simulations from the ground up: modeling and theory in systems biology. Philos Sci 80:533–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mitra P, Pal D (2011) PRUNE and PROBE—two modular web services for protein-protein docking. Nucleic Acids Res 39:W229–W234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morrison M (2009) Models, measurement and computer simulation: the changing face of experimentation. Philos Stud 143:33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nicholls A, Sharp KA, Honig B (1991) Protein folding and association: insights from the interfacial and thermodynamic properties of hydrocarbons. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 11:281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ordorica SAG (2016) The explanatory role of abstraction processes in models: the case of aggregations. Stud Hist Philos Sci 56:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orlev N, Shamir R, Shiloh Y (2004) PIVOT: Protein interactions visualization tool. Bioinformatics 20(3):424–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Periole X, Marrink S-J (2013) The Martini coarse-grained force field. In: Monticelli L, Salonen E (eds) Biomolecular simulations: methods and protocols. Humana Press, New York City, pp 533–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Petrey D, Honig B (2003) GRASP2: Visualization, surface properties, and electrostatics of macromolecular structures and sequences. Methods Enzymol 374:492–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ramsey JL (2007) Calibrating and constructing models of protein folding. Synthese 155:307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ratti E (2015) Big data biology: between eliminative inferences and exploratory experiments. Philos Sci 82(2):198–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ryan DP, Matthews JM (2005) Protein-protein interactions in human disease. Curr Opin Struct Biol 15:441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steinle F (1997) Entering new fields: exploratory uses of experimentation. Philos Sci 64:S65–S74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steinle F (2002a) Challenging established concepts: ampère and exploratory experimentation. Theoria Int J Theory Hist Found Sci 17(2):291–316Google Scholar
  56. Steinle F (2002b) Experiments in history and philosophy of science. Perspect Sci 10:408–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stroganov OV, Novikov FN, Stroylov VS, Kulkov V, Chilov GG (2008) Lead Finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 48:2371–2385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sulea T, Cui Q, Purisima EO (2011) Solvated interaction energy (SIE) for scoring protein-ligand binding affinities. 2. Benchmark in the CSAR-2010 scoring exercise. J Chem Inf Model 51:2066–2081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Takeuchi K, Wagner G (2006) NMR studies of protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tee S-H (2018) Constructing reality with models. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1673-8 Google Scholar
  61. Vezér MA (2016) Computer models and the evidence of anthropogenic climate change: an epistemology of variety-of-evidence inferences and robustness analysis. Stud Hist Philos Sci 56:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waters CK (2007) The nature and context of exploratory experimentation: an introduction to three case studies of exploratory research. Hist Philos Life Sci 29(3):275–284Google Scholar
  63. Wells JA, McClendon CL (2007) Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein-protein interfaces. Nature 450(7172):1001–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Winsberg E (2003) Simulated experiments: methodology for a virtual world. Philos Sci 70:105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wodak SJ, Méndez P (2004) Prediction of protein-protein interactions: the CAPRI experiment, its evaluation and implications. Curr Opin Struct Biol 14:242–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Xiamen University MalaysiaSepangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations