An unexpected way forward: towards a more accurate and rigorous protein-protein binding affinity scoring function by eliminating terms from an already simple scoring function

References

• Audie, J. (2009a). Continued development of an empirical function for predicting and rationalizing protein–protein binding affinities. Biophysical Chemistry, 143, 139–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audie, J. (2009b, August). Development and validation of an empirical free energy function for calculating protein–protein binding free energy surfaces. Biophysical Chemistry, 139, 84–91.10.1016/j.bpc.2008.10.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audie, J., & Scarlata, S. (2007, February). A novel empirical free energy function that explains and predicts protein–protein binding affinities. Biophysical Chemistry, 129(2–3), 198–211.10.1016/j.bpc.2007.05.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernauer, J., Bahadur, R. P., Rodier, F., Janin, J., & Poupon, A. (2008, September). DiMoVo: A Voronoi tessellation-based method for discriminating crystallographic and biological protein–protein interactions. Bioinformatics, 24, 652–658.10.1093/bioinformatics/btn022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandsdal, B. O., Aqvist, J., & Smalas, A. O. (2001, March 1). Computational analysis of binding of P1 variants to trypsin. Protein Science, 10, 1584–1595.10.1110/(ISSN)1469-896X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camps, J., Carrillo, O., Emperador, A., Orellana, L., Hospital, A., Rueda, M., … Orozco, M. (2009, July 1). FlexServ: An integrated tool for the analysis of protein flexibility. Bioinformatics, 25, 1709–1710.10.1093/bioinformatics/btp304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J., Sawyer, N., & Regan, L. (2013, April). Protein–protein interactions: General trends in the relationship between binding affinity and interfacial buried surface area. Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society, 22, 510–515.10.1002/pro.2230
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diller, D. J., Swanson, J., Bayden, A. S., Jarosinski, M., & Audie, J. (2015, October). Rational, computer-enabled peptide drug design: Principles, methods, applications and future directions. Future Medicinal Chemistry, 7, 2173–2193.10.4155/fmc.15.142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erijman, A., Rosenthal, E., & Shifman, J. M. (2014, October 16). How structure defines affinity in protein–protein interactions. PLoS One, 9, e110085.10.1371/journal.pone.0110085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyal, E., Najmanovich, R., McConkey, B. J., Edelman, M., & Sobolev, V. (2004, April 15). Importance of solvent accessibility and contact surfaces in modeling side-chain conformations in proteins. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 25, 712–724.10.1002/(ISSN)1096-987X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janin, J. (2014, December 14). A minimal model of protein–protein binding affinities. Protein Science, 23, 1813–1817.10.1002/pro.v23.12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kastritis, P. L., Moal, I. H., Hwang, H., Weng, Z., Bates, P. A., Bonvin, A. M., & Janin, J. (2011, March). A structure-based benchmark for protein–protein binding affinity. Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society, 20, 482–491.10.1002/pro.580
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuroda, D., & Gray, J. J. (2016, October 4). Pushing the backbone in protein–protein docking. Structure, 24, 1821–1829.10.1016/j.str.2016.06.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, S., Li, Q., & Lai, L. (2006). A combinatorial score to distinguish biological and nonbiological protein–protein interfaces. Proteins, 64, 68–78.10.1002/prot.20954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, J., Guo, Y., Fu, Y., Wang, Y., Li, W., & Li, M. (2014a, November). Effective discrimination between biologically relevant contacts and crystal packing contacts using new determinants. Proteins, 82, 3090–3100.10.1002/prot.v82.11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, J., Guo, Y., Zhong, Y., Ma, D., Li, W., & Li, M. (2014b, June). A functional feature analysis on diverse protein–protein interactions: application for the prediction of binding affinity. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 28, 619–629.10.1007/s10822-014-9746-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitra, P., & Pal, D. (2011, July). PRUNE and PROBE – Two modular web services for protein–protein docking. Nucleic Acids Research, 39, W229–W234.10.1093/nar/gkr317
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moal, I. H., Agius, R., & Bates, P. A. (2011, November 1). Protein–protein binding affinity prediction on a diverse set of structures. Bioinformatics, 27, 3002–3009.10.1093/bioinformatics/btr513
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponomarev, S. Y., & Audie, J. (2011, May). Computational prediction and analysis of the DR6-NAPP interaction. Proteins, 79, 1376–1395.10.1002/prot.v79.5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pons, C., Talavera, D., de la Cruz, X., Orozco, M., & Fernandez-Recio, J. (2011, February 28). Scoring by Intermolecular Pairwise Propensities of Exposed Residues (SIPPER): A new efficient potential for protein–protein docking. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 51, 370–377.10.1021/ci100353e
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, F., Lv, Y., & Yang, L. (2012, August). Structure-based prediction of protein–protein binding affinity with consideration of allosteric effect. Amino Acids, 43, 531–543.10.1007/s00726-011-1101-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, F., Yang, L., Lv, F., Luo, X., & Pan, Y. (2011, February). Why OppA protein can bind sequence-independent peptides? A combination of QM/MM, PB/SA, and structure-based QSAR analyses. Amino Acids, 40, 493–503.10.1007/s00726-010-0661-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vangone, A., & Bonvin, A. M. (2015a, July 20). Contacts-based prediction of binding affinity in protein–protein complexes. eLife, 4, e07454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vangone, A., & Bonvin, A. M. (2015b, July 20). Contacts-based prediction of binding affinity in protein–protein complexes. eLife, 4, e07454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vreven, T., Hwang, H., Pierce, B. G., & Weng, Z. (2012, March). Prediction of protein–protein binding free energies. Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society, 21, 396–404.10.1002/pro.2027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vriend, G. (1990, March). WHAT IF: A molecular modeling and drug design program. Journal of Molecular Graphics, 8, 52–56,29.10.1016/0263-7855(90)80070-V
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Word, J. M., Lovell, S. C., Richardson, J. S., & Richardson, D. C. (1999, January 29). Asparagine and glutamine: Using hydrogen atom contacts in the choice of side-chain amide orientation. Journal of Molecular Biology, 285, 1735–1747.10.1006/jmbi.1998.2401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue, L. C., Rodrigues, J. P., Kastritis, P. L., Bonvin, A. M., & Vangone, A. (2016, December 1). PRODIGY: A web server for predicting the binding affinity of protein–protein complexes. Bioinformatics, 32, 3676–3678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yugandhar, K., & Gromiha, M. M. (2014, December 15). Protein–protein binding affinity prediction from amino acid sequence. Bioinformatics, 30, 3583–3589.10.1093/bioinformatics/btu580
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, P., Wang, C., Tian, F., Ren, Y., Yang, C., & Huang, J. (2013, January). Biomacromolecular quantitative structure–activity relationship (BioQSAR): A proof-of-concept study on the modeling, prediction and interpretation of protein–protein binding affinity. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 27, 67–78.10.1007/s10822-012-9625-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar