Advertisement

Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 769–779 | Cite as

Inhibition of protein interactions: co-crystalized protein–protein interfaces are nearly as good as holo proteins in rigid-body ligand docking

  • Saveliy Belkin
  • Petras J. Kundrotas
  • Ilya A. Vakser
Article

Abstract

Modulating protein interaction pathways may lead to the cure of many diseases. Known protein–protein inhibitors bind to large pockets on the protein–protein interface. Such large pockets are detected also in the protein–protein complexes without known inhibitors, making such complexes potentially druggable. The inhibitor-binding site is primary defined by the side chains that form the largest pocket in the protein-bound conformation. Low-resolution ligand docking shows that the success rate for the protein-bound conformation is close to the one for the ligand-bound conformation, and significantly higher than for the apo conformation. The conformational change on the protein interface upon binding to the other protein results in a pocket employed by the ligand when it binds to that interface. This proof-of-concept study suggests that rather than using computational pocket-opening procedures, one can opt for an experimentally determined structure of the target co-crystallized protein–protein complex as a starting point for drug design.

Keywords

Molecular recognition Drug design Conformational properties Molecular modeling Ligand–receptor interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant R01GM074255 and National Science Foundation Grants DBI1262621, DBI1565107 and CNS1337899.

Supplementary material

10822_2018_124_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 2298 KB)

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Kang MH, Reynolds CP (2009) Bcl-2 inhibitors: targeting mitochondrial apoptotic pathways in cancer therapy. Clin Cancer Res 15:1126–1132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stumpf MP, Thorne T, de Silva E, Stewart R, An HJ, Lappe M, Wiuf C (2008) Estimating the size of the human interactome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:6959–6964CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang QC, Petrey D, Deng L, Qiang L, Shi Y, Thu CA, Bisikirska B, Lefebvre C, Accili D, Hunter T, Maniatis T, Califano A, Honig B (2012) Structure-based prediction of protein-protein interactions on a genome-wide scale. Nature 490:556–560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cierpicki T, Grembecka J (2015) Targeting protein–protein interactions in hematologic malignancies: still a challenge or a great opportunity for future therapies? Immunol Rev 263:279–301CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Higueruelo AP, Schreyer A, Bickerton GRJ, Pitt WR, Groom CR, Blundell TL (2009) Atomic interactions and profile of small molecules disrupting protein–protein interfaces: the TIMBAL database. Chem Biol Drug Des 74:457–467CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basse MJ, Betzi S, Bourgeas R, Bouzidi S, Chetrit B, Hamon V, Morelli X, Roche P (2013) 2P2Idb: a structural database dedicated to orthosteric modulation of protein–protein interactions. Nucl Acid Res 41:D824–D827Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gorczynski MJ, Grembecka J, Zhou Y, Kong Y, Roudaia L, Douvas MG, Newman M, Bielnicka I, Baber G, Corpora T, Shi J, Sridharan M, Lilien R, Donald BR, Speck NA, Brown ML, Bushweller JH (2007) Allosteric inhibition of the protein-protein interaction between the leukemia-associated proteins Runx1 and CBFβ. Chem Biol 14:1186–1197CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith MC, Gestwicki JE (2012) Features of protein-protein interactions that translate into potent inhibitors: topology, surface area and affinity. Expert Rev Mol Med 14:e16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Acuner Ozbabacan SE, Gursoy A, Keskin O, Nussinov R (2010) Conformational ensembles, signal transduction and residue hot spots: application to drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 13:527–537Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kozakov D, Hall DR, Chuang GY, Cencic R, Brenke R, Grove LE, Beglov D, Pelletier J, Whitty A, Vajda S (2011) Structural conservation of druggable hot spots in protein–protein interfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:13528–13533CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koes DR, Camacho CJ (2012) Small-molecule inhibitor starting points learned from protein–protein interaction inhibitor structure. Bioinformatics 28:784–791CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    London N, Raveh B, Movshovitz-Attias D, Schueler-Furman O (2010) Can self-inhibitory peptides be derived from the interfaces of globular protein–protein interactions? Proteins 78:3140–3149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zaidman D, Wolfson HJ (2016) PinaColada: peptide–inhibitor ant colony ad-hoc design algorithm. Bioinformatics 32:2289–2296CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fuller JC, Burgoyne NJ, Jackson RM (2009) Predicting druggable binding sites at the protein-protein interface. Drug Discov Today 14:155–161CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gowthaman R, Deeds EJ, Karanicolas J (2013) Structural properties of non-traditional drug targets present new challenges for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 53:2073–2081CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shoichet BK, Walters WP, Jiang H, Bajorath J (2016) Advances in computational medicinal chemistry: a reflection on the evolution of the field and perspective going forward. J Med Chem 59:4033–4034CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janin J, Bahadur RP, Chakrabarti P (2008) Protein-protein interaction and quaternary structure. Quart Rev Biophys 41:133–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gao M, Skolnick J (2012) The distribution of ligand-binding pockets around protein-protein interfaces suggests a general mechanism for pocket formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:3784–3789CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eyrisch S, Helms V (2007) Transient pockets on protein surfaces involved in protein-protein interaction. J Med Chem 50:3457–3464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Metz A, Pfleger C, Kopitz H, Pfeiffer-Marek S, Baringhaus KH, Gohlke H (2011) Hot spots and transient pockets: predicting the determinants of small-molecule binding to a protein-protein interface. J Chem Inf Model 52:120–133CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson DK, Karanicolas J (2013) Druggable protein interaction sites are more predisposed to surface pocket formation than the rest of the protein surface. PLoS Comp Biol 9:e1002951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ulucan O, Eyrisch S, Helms V (2012) Druggability of dynamic protein-protein interfaces. Curr Pharm Design 18:4599–4606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuenemann MA, Sperandio O, Labbe CM, Lagorce D, Miteva MA, Villoutreix BO (2015) In silico design of low molecular weight protein-protein interaction inhibitors: overall concept and recent advances. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 119:20–32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vakser IA, Matar OG, Lam CF (1999) A systematic study of low-resolution recognition in protein-protein complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:8477–8482CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brylinski M, Skolnick J (2008) Q-Dock: low-resolution flexible ligand docking with pocket-specific threading restraints. J Comput Chem 29:1574–1588CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhao J, Dundas J, Kachalo S, Ouyang Z, Liang J (2011) Accuracy of functional surfaces on comparatively modeled protein structures. J Struct Funct Genomics 12:97–107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Skolnick J, Zhou H, Gao M (2013) Are predicted protein structures of any value for binding site prediction and virtual ligand screening? Curr Opin Struct Biol 23:191–197CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bohnuud T, Kozakov D, Vajda S (2014) Evidence of conformational selection driving the formation of ligand binding sites in protein-protein interfaces. PLoS Comp Biol 10:e1003872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang Y, Skolnick J (2005) TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score. Nucl Acid Res 33:2302–2309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu P, Agrafiotis DK, Theobald DL (2010) Fast determination of the optimal rotational matrix for macromolecular superpositions. J Comput Chem 31:1561–1563PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, Madden TL (2009) BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform 10:421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Katchalski-Katzir E, Shariv I, Eisenstein M, Friesem AA, Aflalo C, Vakser IA (1992) Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:2195–2199CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vakser IA (1995) Protein docking for low-resolution structures. Protein Eng 8:371–377CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hendlich M, Rippmann F, Barnickel G (1997) LIGSITE: automatic and efficient detection of potential small molecule-binding sites in proteins. J Mol Graph Mod 15:359–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clauset A, Newman MEJ, Moore C (2004) Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys Rev E 70:66111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28:235–242CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Anishchenko I, Kundrotas PJ, Tuzikov AV, Vakser IA (2015) Structural templates for comparative protein docking. Proteins 83:1563–1570CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ruvinsky AM, Kirys T, Tuzikov AV, Vakser IA (2011) Side-chain conformational changes upon protein-protein association. J Mol Biol 408:356–365CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ruvinsky AM, Kirys T, Tuzikov AV, Vakser IA (2013) Ensemble-based characterization of unbound and bound states on protein energy landscape. Protein Sci 22:734–744CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Camacho CJ, Vajda S (2002) Protein-protein association kinetics and protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 12:36–40CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lensink MF, Wodak SJ (2013) Docking, scoring, and affinity prediction in CAPRI. Proteins 81:2082–2095CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tuszynska I, Bujnicki JM (2011) DARS-RNP and QUASI-RNP: new statistical potentials for protein-RNA docking. BMC Bioinformatics 12:348CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bliznyuk AA, Gready JE (1999) Simple method for locating possible ligand binding sites on protein surfaces. J Comput Chem 20(9):983–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Porter KA, Xia B, Beglov D, Bohnuud T, Alam N, Schueler-Furman O, Kozakov D (2017) ClusPro PeptiDock: efficient global docking of peptide recognition motifs using FFT. Bioinformatics 33:3299–3301CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bamborough P, Cohen F (1996) Modeling protein-ligand complexes. Curr Opin Struct Biol 6:236–241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Blom NS, Sygusch J (1997) High resolution fast quantitative docking using fourier domain correlation techniques. Proteins 27:493–506CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kufareva I, Rueda M, Katritch V, participants GD, Stevens RC, Abagyan R (2011) Status of GPCR modeling and docking as reflected by community-wide GPCR Dock 2010 assessment. Structure 19:1108–1126CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Padhorny D, Hall DR, Mirzaei H, Mamonov AB, Moghadasi M, Alekseenko A, Beglov D, Kozakov D (2018) Protein-ligand docking using FFT based sampling: D3R case study. J Comput Aided Mol Des 32:225–230CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vakser IA (1996) Low-resolution docking: prediction of complexes for underdetermined structures. Biopolymers 39:455–464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Johnson DK, Karanicolas J (2015) Selectivity by small-molecule inhibitors of protein interactions can be driven by protein surface fluctuations. PLoS Comp Biol 11:e1004081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Levitt M (2009) Nature of the protein universe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:11079–11084CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    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 USA 109:9438–9441CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sinha R, Kundrotas PJ, Vakser IA (2010) Docking by structural similarity at protein-protein interfaces. Proteins 78:3235–3241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sinha R, Kundrotas PJ, Vakser IA (2012) Protein docking by the interface structure similarity: how much structure is needed? PloS ONE 7:e31349CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kundrotas PJ, Vakser IA (2013) Global and local structural similarity in protein-protein complexes: implications for template-based docking. Proteins 81:2137–2142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kundrotas PJ, Anishchenko I, Dauzhenka T, Vakser IA (2018) Modeling CAPRI targets 110–120 by template-based and free docking using contact potential and combined scoring function. Proteins 86:302–310CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vakser IA (2014) Protein-protein docking: from interaction to interactome. Biophys J 107:1785–1793CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Huang Z, Sutton SE, Wallenfang AJ, Orchard RC, Wu X, Feng Y, Chai J, Alto NM (2009) Structural insights into host GTPase isoform selection by a family of bacterial GEF mimics. Nat Struct Mol Biol 16:853–860CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ford B, Verger D, Dodson K, Volkan E, Kostakioti M, Elam J, Pinkner J, Waksman G, Hultgren S (2012) The structure of the PapD-PapGII pilin complex reveals an open and flexible P5 pocket. J Bacteriol 194:6390–6397CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shi H, Xu R (2003) Crystal structure of the Drosophila Mago nashi—Y14 complex. Genes Dev 17:971–976CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Paaventhan P, Kong C, Joseph JS, Chung MCM, Kolatkar PR (2005) Structure of rhodocetin reveals noncovalently bound heterodimer interface. Protein Sci 14:169–175CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Computational BiologyThe University of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular BiosciencesThe University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations