Computing and Displaying Intermolecular Negative Volume for Docking

  • Chang Ha Lee
  • Amitabh Varshney
Part of the Mathematics and Visualization book series (MATHVISUAL)

Summary

Protein docking is a Grand Challenge problem that is crucial to our understanding of biochemical processes. Several protein docking algorithms use shape complementarity as the primary criterion for evaluating the docking candidates. The intermolecular volume and area between docked molecules is useful as a measure of the shape complementarity. In this paper we discuss an algorithm for interactively computing intermolecular negative volume and the area of docking site using graphics hardware. We also present the design considerations for building an interactive 3D visualization tool for visualizing intermolecular negative volumes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. L. Connolly. Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science, 221:709–713, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. L. Connolly. Shape complementarity at the hemoglobin a1b1 subunit interface. Biopolymers, 25:1229–1247, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Domik and G. Fels. HotDock: An interactive approach to molecular docking, 1996. http://www.uni-paderborn.de/lst/HotDock/.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Edelsbrunner, M. A. Facello, and J. Liang. On the definition and the construction of pockets in macromolecules. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 88(4):83–102, 1998.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Edelsbrunner, J. Liang, and C. Woodward. Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: Measurement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design. Protein Science, 7(9):1884–1897, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Hawkes, S. Rushton, and M. Smyth. Update rates and fidelity in virtual environments. Virtual Reality: Research, Applications and Design, 1(2):46–51, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Jones and J. M. Thornton. Principles of protein-protein interactions. In Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, volume 93, pp. 13–20, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Katchalski-Katzir, I. Shariv, M. Eisenstein, A. A. Friesem, C. Aflalo, and I. A. Vakser. Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America, volume 89, pp. 2195–2199, March 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O. Kreylos, N. L. Max, B. Hamann, S. N. Crivelli, and E. W. Behel. Interactive protein manipulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Visualization, pp. 581–588, Seattle, Washington, October 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. D. Kuntz. Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Science, 257:1078–1082, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. A. Laskowski. SURFNET: a program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. Journal of Molecular Graphics, 13(5):323–330, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. C. Lawrence and P. M. Colman. Shape complementarity at protein/protein interfaces. Journal of Molecular Biology, 234(4):946–950, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline. Marching cubes: a high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH, pp. 163–169, July 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Nadassy, I. Tomas-Oliveira, I. Alberts J., Janin, and S. J. Wodak. Standard atomic volumes in double-stranded DNA and packing in protein-DNA interfaces. Nucleic Acids Research, 29(16):3362–3376, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Olson. Tangible interfaces for molecular biology. In Demos at the IEEE Visualization, page D12, Seattle, Washington, October 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. M. Richards. Areas, volumes, packing and protein structures. In Annual Review of Biophysics and Bioengineering, volume 6, pp. 151–176, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. J. F. Smets and K. J. Overbeeke. Trade-off between resolution and interactivity in spatial task performance. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 15(5):46–51, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Varshney, F. P. Brooks Jr., D. C. Richardson, W. V. Wright, and D. Manocha. Defining, computing, and visualizing molecular interfaces. In IEEE Visualization, pp. 36–43, October 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. A. Wintner and C. C. Moallemi. Quantized surface complementarity diversity (QSCD): A model based on small molecule-target complementarity. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 43:1993–2006, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. M. Word, S. C. Lovell, T. H. LaBean, H. C. Taylor, M. E. Zalis, B. K. Presley, J. S. Richardson, and D. C. Richardson. Visualizing and quantifying molecular goodness-offit: Small-probe contact dots with explicit hydrogen atoms. Journal of Molecular Biology, 285(4):1711–1733, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chang Ha Lee
    • 1
  • Amitabh Varshney
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and UMIACSUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations