4.3 Article

Lessons from (co-)evolution in the docking of proteins and peptides for CAPRI Rounds 28-35

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/prot.25180

关键词

protein-protein docking; evolutionary information; coevolution; CAPRI; InterEvScore; InterEvDock; protein-peptide docking; protein-protein interaction

资金

  1. IDEX Paris Saclay [IDI 2013]
  2. [ANR-15-CE11-0008-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computational protein-protein docking is of great importance for understanding protein interactions at the structural level. Critical assessment of prediction of interactions (CAPRI) experiments provide the protein docking community with a unique opportunity to blindly test methods based on real-life cases and help accelerate methodology development. For CAPRI Rounds 28-35, we used an automatic docking pipeline integrating the coarse-grained co-evolution-based potential InterEvScore. This score was developed to exploit the information contained in the multiple sequence alignments of binding partners and selectively recognize co-evolved interfaces. Together with Zdock/Frodock for rigid-body docking, SOAP-PP for atomic potential and Rosetta applications for structural refinement, this pipeline reached high performance on a majority of targets. For protein-peptide docking and interfacial water position predictions, we also explored different means of taking evolutionary information into account. Overall, our group ranked 1st by correctly predicting 10 targets, composed of 1 High, 7 Medium and 2 Acceptable predictions. Excellent and Outstanding levels of accuracy were reached for each of the two water prediction targets, respectively. Altogether, in 15 out of 18 targets in total, evolutionary information, either through co-evolution or conservation analyses, could provide key constraints to guide modeling towards the most likely assemblies. These results open promising perspectives regarding the way evolutionary information can be valuable to improve docking prediction accuracy. (C) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据