Identifying Loop-Mediated Protein–Protein Interactions Using LoopFinder

  • Timothy R. Siegert
  • Michael Bird
  • Joshua A. Kritzer
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1561)


Peptides are an increasingly useful class of molecules, finding unique applications as chemical probes and potential drugs. They are particularly adept at inhibiting protein–protein interactions, which are often difficult to target using small molecules. The identification and rational design of protein-binding epitopes remains a bottleneck in the development of bioactive peptides. One fruitful strategy has been using structured scaffolds to present essential hot spot residues involved in protein–protein recognition, and this process has been greatly advanced by computational tools that can identify hot spot residues. Here we discuss LoopFinder, a program that uses structures from the Protein Data Bank to comprehensively search for protein–protein interactions that are mediated by nonhelical, nonsheet loop structures. We developed LoopFinder to identify these “hot loops” and to assist in the design of cyclic peptides that mimic these important structures. In this article, we provide all key files, outline step-by-step methods for users to conduct independent LoopFinder searches, and provide guidance on additional potential applications for the LoopFinder program.

Key words

Protein–protein interactions Macrocycles Cyclic peptides Peptide design Inhibitors Chemical biology 

Supplementary material (35 kb)
(PY 35 kb) (0 kb)
(SH 472 bytes) (0 kb)
(SH 373 bytes) (1 kb)
(PY 346 kb)


  1. 1.
    Wells JA, McClendon CL (2007) Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein-protein interfaces. Nature 450(7172):1001–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith MC, Gestwicki JE (2012) Features of protein-protein interactions that translate into potent inhibitors: topology, surface area and affinity. Expert Rev Mol Med 14Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arkin MR, Tang YY, Wells JA (2014) Small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: progressing toward the reality. Chem Biol 21(9):1102–1114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fosgerau K, Hoffmann T (2015) Peptide therapeutics: current status and future directions. Drug Discov Today 20(1):122–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craik DJ, Fairlie DP, Liras S, Price D (2013) The future of peptide-based drugs. Chem Biol Drug Des 81(1):136–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clackson T, Wells JA (1995) A hot-spot of binding-energy in a hormone-receptor interface. Science 267(5196):383–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cunningham BC, Wells JA (1993) Comparison of a structural and a functional epitope. J Mol Biol 234:554–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schymkowitz J et al (2005) The FoldX web server: an online force field. Nucleic Acids Res 33:W382–W388CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kortemme T, Baker D (2002) A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein-protein complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99(22):14116–14121CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kortemme T, Kim D, Baker D (2004) Computational alanine scanning of protein-protein interfaces. Sci STKE 2004:pl2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rajamani D, Thiel S, Vajda S, Camacho CJ (2004) Anchor residues in protein–protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:11287–11292CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koes DR, Camacho CJ (2012) PocketQuery: protein–protein interaction inhibitor starting points from protein–protein interaction structure. Nucleic Acids Res 40:W387–W392CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gao Y, Wang RX, Lai LH (2004) Structure-based method for analyzing protein-protein interfaces. J Mol Model 10(1):44–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brenke R et al (2009) Fragment-based identification of druggable ‘hot spots’ of proteins using Fourier domain correlation techniques. Bioinformatics 25(5):621–627CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Gao M et al (2014) Rationally designed macrocyclic peptides as synergistic agonists of LPS-induced inflammatory response. Tetrahedron 70:7664–7668CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jochim AL, Arora PS (2010) Systematic analysis of helical protein interfaces reveals targets for synthetic inhibitors. ACS Chem Biol 5(10):919–923CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bullock BN, Jochim AL, Arora PS (2011) Assessing helical protein interfaces for inhibitor design. J Am Chem Soc 133(36):14220–14223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patgiri A, Jochim AL, Arora PS (2008) A hydrogen bond surrogate approach for stabilization of short peptide sequences in alpha-helical conformation. Acc Chem Res 41(10):1289–1300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Azzarito V, Long K, Murphy NS, Wilson AJ (2013) Inhibition of alpha-helix-mediated protein-protein interactions using designed molecules. Nat Chem 5(3):161–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Watkins AM, Arora PS (2014) Anatomy of beta-strands at protein-protein interfaces. ACS Chem Biol 9(8):1747–1754CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jayatunga MKP, Thompson S, Hamilton AD (2014) alpha-Helix mimetics: outwards and upwards. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 24(3):717–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loughlin WA, Tyndall JDA, Glenn MP, Fairlie DP (2004) Beta-strand mimetics. Chem Rev 104(12):6085–6117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pelay-Gimeno M, Glas A, Koch O, Grossmann TN (2015) Structure-based design of inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: mimicking peptide binding epitopes. Angew Chem Int Ed 54(31):8896–8927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wieland T, Faulstich H (1991) 50 Years of amanitin. Experientia 47(11–12):1186–1193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schreiber SL, Crabtree GR (1992) The mechanism of action of cyclosporine-a and Fk506. Immunol Today 13(4):136–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bockus AT, McEwen CM, Lokey RS (2013) Form and function in cyclic peptide natural products: a pharmacokinetic perspective. Curr Top Med Chem 13(7):821–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bock JE, Gavenonis J, Kritzer JA (2013) Getting in shape: controlling peptide bioactivity and bioavailability using conformational constraints. ACS Chem Biol 8(3):488–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guharoy M, Chakrabarti P (2007) Secondary structure based analysis and classification of biological interfaces: identification of binding motifs in protein–protein interactions. Bioinformatics 23(15):1909–1918CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gavenonis J, Sheneman BA, Siegert TR, Eshelman MR, Kritzer JA (2014) Comprehensive analysis of loops at protein-protein interfaces for macrocycle design. Nat Chem Biol 10(9):716–722CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chaudhury S, Lyskov S, Gray JJ (2010) PyRosetta: a script-based interface for implementing molecular modeling algorithms using Rosetta. Bioinformatics 26(5):689–691CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shulman-Peleg A, Shatsky M, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ (2007) Spatial chemical conservation of hot spot interactions in protein-protein complexes. BMC Biol 5Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berman HM et al (2000) The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28(1):235–242CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lo SC, Li XC, Henzl MT, Beamer LJ, Hannink M (2006) Structure of the Keap1: Nrf2 interface provides mechanistic insight into Nrf2 signaling. EMBO J 25(15):3605–3617CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schilling J, Schoppe J, Pluckthun A (2014) From DARPins to LoopDARPins: novel LoopDARPin design allows the selection of low picomolar binders in a single round of ribosome display. J Mol Biol 426(3):691–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    North B, Lehmann A, Dunbrack RL (2011) A new clustering of antibody CDR loop conformations. J Mol Biol 406(2):228–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Javadi Y, Itzhaki LS (2013) Tandem-repeat proteins: regularity plus modularity equals design-ability. Curr Opin Struct Biol 23(4):622–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yu Y, Lutz S (2011) Circular permutation: a different way to engineer enzyme structure and function. Trends Biotechnol 29(1):18–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brunette TJ et al (2015) Exploring the repeat protein universe through computational protein design. Nature 528(7583):580–584CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Villar EA et al (2014) How proteins bind macrocycles. Nat Chem Biol 10(9):723–731CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hopkins AL, Groom CR, Alex A (2004) Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov Today 9(10):430–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lavi A et al (2013) Detection of peptide-binding sites on protein surfaces: the first step toward the modeling and targeting of peptide-mediated interactions. Proteins 81:2096–2105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bergey CM, Watkins AM, Arora PS (2013) HippDB: a database of readily targeted helical protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics 29(21):2806–2807CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    White CJ, Yudin AK (2011) Contemporary strategies for peptide macrocyclization. Nat Chem 3(7):509–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Timmerman P, Beld J, Puijk WC, Meloen RH (2005) Rapid and quantitative cyclization of multiple peptide loops onto synthetic scaffolds for structural mimicry of protein surfaces. Chembiochem 6:821–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Walensky LD, Bird GH (2014) Hydrocarbon-stapled peptides: principles, practice, and progress. J Med Chem 57(15):6275–6288CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gould A, Ji YB, Aboye TL, Camarero JA (2011) Cyclotides, a novel ultrastable polypeptide scaffold for drug discovery. Curr Pharm Des 17(38):4294–4307CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy R. Siegert
    • 1
  • Michael Bird
    • 1
  • Joshua A. Kritzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations