Computational prediction of protein–protein binding affinities
TL;DR: The present review aims at presenting an overview on available methods and discussing advantages, approximations, and limitations of the various methods, with a focus on molecular mechanics force‐field approaches.
read more
Abstract: Protein–protein interactions form central elements of almost all cellular processes. Knowledge of the structure of protein–protein complexes but also of the binding affinity is of major importance to understand the biological function of protein–protein interactions. Even weak transient protein–protein interactions can be of functional relevance for the cell during signal transduction or regulation of metabolism. The structure of a growing number of protein–protein complexes has been solved in recent years. Combined with docking approaches or template‐based methods, it is possible to generate structural models of many putative protein–protein complexes or to design new protein–protein interactions. In order to evaluate the functional relevance of putative or predicted protein–protein complexes, realistic binding affinity prediction is of increasing importance. Several computational tools ranging from simple force‐field or knowledge‐based scoring of single protein–protein complexes to ensemble‐based approaches and rigorous binding free energy simulations are available to predict relative and absolute binding affinities of complexes. With a focus on molecular mechanics force‐field approaches the present review aims at presenting an overview on available methods and discussing advantages, approximations, and limitations of the various methods.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
The SARS-CoV-2 Spike Variant D614G Favors an Open Conformational State.
Rachael A. Mansbach,Srirupa Chakraborty,Kien Nguyen,David C. Montefiori,Bette T. Korber,Sandrasegaram Gnanakaran +5 more
TL;DR: It is shown that changes in the inter-protomer energetics due to the D614G substitution favor a higher population of infection-capable (open) states, and the increased infectivity of the G-form is likely due to a higher rate of profitable binding encounters with the host receptor.
151
Protein–protein interaction prediction with deep learning: A comprehensive review
TL;DR: A review of deep learning methods applied to problems including predicting protein functions, protein-protein interaction and their sites, proteinligand binding, and protein design can be found in this article .
84
An Effective MM/GBSA Protocol for Absolute Binding Free Energy Calculations: A Case Study on SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein and the Human ACE2 Receptor.
Negin Forouzesh,Nikita Mishra +1 more
TL;DR: In this article, a generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) framework was employed to calculate the binding affinity between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the human ACE2 receptor.
75
Accuracy of Molecular Simulation-Based Predictions of koff Values: A Metadynamics Study.
Riccardo Capelli,Wenping Lyu,Viacheslav Bolnykh,Simone Meloni,Jógvan Magnus Haugaard Olsen,Ursula Rothlisberger,Michele Parrinello,Michele Parrinello,Michele Parrinello,Paolo Carloni +9 more
TL;DR: An established method is used to calculate koff values -frequency-adaptive metadynamics with force field- and a subsequent QM/MM descriptions of the interactions and it turns out that this discrepancy is partly caused by lack of electronic polarization and/or charge transfer in commonly employed force field.
61
BFEE2: Automated, Streamlined, and Accurate Absolute Binding Free-Energy Calculations.
TL;DR: The binding free energy estimator (BFEE2) as discussed by the authors provides both standardized alchemical and geometrical workflows and obviates the need for extensive human intervention to guarantee complete reproducibility of the results.
52
References
HADDOCK: a protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information.
TL;DR: An approach called HADDOCK (High Ambiguity Driven protein-protein Docking) that makes use of biochemical and/or biophysical interaction data such as chemical shift perturbation data resulting from NMR titration experiments or mutagenesis data to drive the docking process.
PatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking
TL;DR: Two freely available web servers for molecular docking that perform structure prediction of protein–protein and protein–small molecule complexes and the SymmDock method predicts the structure of a homomultimer with cyclic symmetry given theructure of the monomeric unit are described.
3K
Efficient estimation of free energy differences from Monte Carlo data
TL;DR: Near-optimal strategies are developed for estimating the free energy difference between two canonical ensembles, given a Metropolis-type Monte Carlo program for sampling each one, and their efficiency is never less or greater than that obtained by sampling only one ensemble.
2.8K
The coming of age of de novo protein design
TL;DR: De novo protein design explores the full sequence space, guided by the physical principles that underlie protein folding, to design new functional proteins from the ground up to tackle current challenges in biomedicine and nanotechnology.
1.3K
The Rosetta All-Atom Energy Function for Macromolecular Modeling and Design.
Rebecca F. Alford,Andrew Leaver-Fay,Jeliazko R. Jeliazkov,Matthew J. O’Meara,Frank DiMaio,Hahnbeom Park,Maxim V. Shapovalov,P. Douglas Renfrew,Vikram Khipple Mulligan,Kalli Kappel,Jason W. Labonte,Michael S. Pacella,Richard Bonneau,Philip Bradley,Roland L. Dunbrack,Rhiju Das,David Baker,Brian Kuhlman,Tanja Kortemme,Jeffrey J. Gray +19 more
TL;DR: This paper describes the mathematical models and physical concepts that underlie the latest Rosetta energy function, called the Rosetta Energy Function 2015 (REF15), and explains how to use Rosetta energies to identify and analyze the features of biomolecular models.