scholarly journals InterPred: A pipeline to identify and model protein-protein interactions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Mirabello ◽  
Björn Wallner
Keyword(s):  
Protein Interaction ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Function ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
Protein Docking ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Interaction Detection ◽  
Molecular Detail ◽  
Better Than

AbstractProtein-protein interactions (PPI) are crucial for protein function. There exist many techniques to identify PPIs experimentally, but to determine the interactions in molecular detail is still difficult and very time-consuming. The fact that the number of PPIs is vastly larger than the number of individual proteins makes it practically impossible to characterize all interactions experimentally. Computational approaches that can bridge this gap and predict PPIs and model the interactions in molecular detail are greatly needed. Here we present InterPred, a fully automated pipeline that predicts and model PPIs from sequence using structural modelling combined with massive structural comparisons and molecular docking. A key component of the method is the use of a novel random forest classifier that integrate several structural features to distinguish correct from incorrect protein-protein interaction models. We show that InterPred represents a major improvement in protein-protein interaction detection with a performance comparable or better than experimental high-throughput techniques. We also show that our full-atom protein-protein complex modelling pipeline performs better than state of the art protein docking methods on a standard benchmark set. In addition, InterPred was also one of the top predictors in the latest CAPRI37 experiment.InterPred source code can be downloaded from http://wallnerlab.org/InterPred

scholarly journals In silico analysis of protein-protein interfaces: Tools and approaches

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 7539-7548
Author(s):  
Christina Nilofer ◽  
Arumugam Mohanapriya
Keyword(s):  
Protein Interaction ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
In Silico Analysis ◽  
Physicochemical Characteristics ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
Interface Residue ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Molecular Functions

Two or more proteins interact in vivo to perform complex molecular functions including catalysis, regulation, assembly, immunity and inhibition through the formation of stable interfaces. This interaction is governed by several factors that are selective, sensitive and specific in nature. Several interface features has been documented since 1975. The study of these interface features of proteins and their dynamicity during interaction with different proteins help understanding the mechanisms underlying diverse molecular functions and its biological processes. Computational tools greatly assist in studying such interface features that determine the interaction between two or more proteins, and in this context, this review enumerates the different interface features reported thus far along with the tools that aid in deciphering protein features (physicochemical characteristics, binding site and interface residue prediction and hotspot residues) along with their approaches that are employed in the prediction these features. Also, the review discusses the advantages and limitations of experimental techniques and computational biological tools deployed for deciphering the protein-protein interactions. Altogether, the review will provide insights into the optimal tools and different strategies involved in protein interaction studies that would facilitate the researchers to understand the protein structural features and molecular principles of protein-protein interaction with known functions.

RING fingers and B-boxes: zinc-binding protein-protein interaction domains

1998 ◽  
Vol 76 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 351-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine LB Borden
Keyword(s):  
Conformational Changes ◽  
Protein Interaction ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
Zinc Binding ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Biological Studies ◽  
Interaction Domains ◽  
Nmr Methods

The cysteine-rich zinc-binding motifs known as the RING and B-box are found in several unrelated proteins. Structural, biochemical, and biological studies of these motifs reveal that they mediate protein-protein interactions. Several RING-containing proteins are oncoproteins and recent data indicate that proapoptotic activities can be mediated through the RING. 1H NMR methods were used to determine the structures of RINGs and a B-box domain and to monitor the conformational changes these motifs undergo upon zinc ligation. This review discusses in detail the structural features of the RING and B-box domains. Further, possible structure function relationships for these motifs particularly in their role as protein interaction domains are discussed.Key words: RING, B-box, PML, NMR.

An efficient transient assays system using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of onion (Allium cepa) epidermal cells

2020 ◽  
Vol 80 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Miao Zhang ◽  
Jun Wang ◽  
Tao Wu
Keyword(s):  
Subcellular Localization ◽  
Protein Interaction ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Epidermal Cells ◽  
Cyclin Dependent Kinase ◽  
Protein Subcellular Localization ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Efficient System ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Onion Epidermal Cells

In this study, the Agrobacterium infection medium, infection duration, detergent, and cell density were optimized. The sorghum-based infection medium (SbIM), 10-20 min infection time, addition of 0.01% Silwet L-77, and Agrobacterium optical density at 600 nm (OD600), improved the competence of onion epidermal cells to support Agrobacterium infection at >90% efficiency. Cyclin-dependent kinase D-2 (CDKD-2) and cytochrome c-type biogenesis protein (CYCH), protein-protein interactions were localized. The optimized procedure is a quick and efficient system for examining protein subcellular localization and protein-protein interaction.

Protein Interaction Domains and Post-Translational Modifications: Structural Features and Drug Discovery Applications

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (37) ◽  
pp. 6306-6355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Vincenzi ◽  
Flavia Anna Mercurio ◽  
Marilisa Leone
Keyword(s):  
Drug Discovery ◽  
Protein Interaction ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Structural Information ◽  
Protein Complexes ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Modular Architecture ◽  
Post Translational Modifications ◽  
Interaction Domains

Background:: Many pathways regarding healthy cells and/or linked to diseases onset and progression depend on large assemblies including multi-protein complexes. Protein-protein interactions may occur through a vast array of modules known as protein interaction domains (PIDs). Objective:: This review concerns with PIDs recognizing post-translationally modified peptide sequences and intends to provide the scientific community with state of art knowledge on their 3D structures, binding topologies and potential applications in the drug discovery field. Method:: Several databases, such as the Pfam (Protein family), the SMART (Simple Modular Architecture Research Tool) and the PDB (Protein Data Bank), were searched to look for different domain families and gain structural information on protein complexes in which particular PIDs are involved. Recent literature on PIDs and related drug discovery campaigns was retrieved through Pubmed and analyzed. Results and Conclusion:: PIDs are rather versatile as concerning their binding preferences. Many of them recognize specifically only determined amino acid stretches with post-translational modifications, a few others are able to interact with several post-translationally modified sequences or with unmodified ones. Many PIDs can be linked to different diseases including cancer. The tremendous amount of available structural data led to the structure-based design of several molecules targeting protein-protein interactions mediated by PIDs, including peptides, peptidomimetics and small compounds. More studies are needed to fully role out, among different families, PIDs that can be considered reliable therapeutic targets, however, attacking PIDs rather than catalytic domains of a particular protein may represent a route to obtain selective inhibitors.

Decoding Protein-protein Interactions: An Overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 855-882
Author(s):  
Olivia Slater ◽  
Bethany Miller ◽  
Maria Kontoyianni
Keyword(s):  
Drug Discovery ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Drug Repurposing ◽  
Protein Docking ◽  
Target Space ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
X Ray Crystallography ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Interaction Sites ◽  
Long Time

Drug discovery has focused on the paradigm “one drug, one target” for a long time. However, small molecules can act at multiple macromolecular targets, which serves as the basis for drug repurposing. In an effort to expand the target space, and given advances in X-ray crystallography, protein-protein interactions have become an emerging focus area of drug discovery enterprises. Proteins interact with other biomolecules and it is this intricate network of interactions that determines the behavior of the system and its biological processes. In this review, we briefly discuss networks in disease, followed by computational methods for protein-protein complex prediction. Computational methodologies and techniques employed towards objectives such as protein-protein docking, protein-protein interactions, and interface predictions are described extensively. Docking aims at producing a complex between proteins, while interface predictions identify a subset of residues on one protein that could interact with a partner, and protein-protein interaction sites address whether two proteins interact. In addition, approaches to predict hot spots and binding sites are presented along with a representative example of our internal project on the chemokine CXC receptor 3 B-isoform and predictive modeling with IP10 and PF4.

scholarly journals Universal Screening Methods and Applications of ThermoFluor®

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 854-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell D. Cummings ◽  
Michael A. Farnum ◽  
Marina I. Nelen
Keyword(s):  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Function ◽  
Protein Unfolding ◽  
Direct Detection ◽  
Functional Characterization ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Bacterial Enzyme ◽  
Research Problems

The genomics revolution has unveiled a wealth of poorly characterized proteins. Scientists are often able to produce milligram quantities of proteins for which function is unknown or hypothetical, based only on very distant sequence homology. Broadly applicable tools for functional characterization are essential to the illumination of these orphan proteins. An additional challenge is the direct detection of inhibitors of protein-protein interactions (and allosteric effectors). Both of these research problems are relevant to, among other things, the challenge of finding and validating new protein targets for drug action. Screening collections of small molecules has long been used in the pharmaceutical industry as 1 method of discovering drug leads. Screening in this context typically involves a function-based assay. Given a sufficient quantity of a protein of interest, significant effort may still be required for functional characterization, assay development, and assay configuration for screening. Increasingly, techniques are being reported that facilitate screening for specific ligands for a protein of unknown function. Such techniques also allow for function-independent screening with better characterized proteins. ThermoFluor®, a screening instrument based on monitoring ligand effects on temperature-dependent protein unfolding, can be applied when protein function is unknown. This technology has proven useful in the decryption of an essential bacterial enzyme and in the discovery of a series of inhibitors of a cancer-related, protein-protein interaction. The authors review some of the tools relevant to these research problems in drug discovery, and describe our experiences with 2 different proteins.

Furan warheads for covalent trapping of weak protein-protein interactions: cross-linking of thymosin β4 to actin

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laia Miret Casals ◽  
Willem Vannecke ◽  
Kurt Hoogewijs ◽  
Gianluca Arauz ◽  
Marina Gay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protein Interaction ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
3D Structure ◽  
Cross Linking ◽  
Thymosin Β4 ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Covalent Trapping

We describe furan as a triggerable ‘warhead’ for site-specific cross-linking using the actin and thymosin β4 (Tβ4)-complex as model of a weak and dynamic protein-protein interaction with known 3D structure...

scholarly journals HMNPPID—human malignant neoplasm protein–protein interaction database

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingqing Li ◽  
Zhihao Yang ◽  
Zhehuan Zhao ◽  
Ling Luo ◽  
Zhiheng Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protein Interaction ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Molecular Mechanisms ◽  
Malignant Neoplasm ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Malignant Neoplasms ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Interaction Database ◽  
Protein Interaction Database

Abstract Background Protein–protein interaction (PPI) information extraction from biomedical literature helps unveil the molecular mechanisms of biological processes. Especially, the PPIs associated with human malignant neoplasms can unveil the biology behind these neoplasms. However, such PPI database is not currently available. Results In this work, a database of protein–protein interactions associated with 171 kinds of human malignant neoplasms named HMNPPID is constructed. In addition, a visualization program, named VisualPPI, is provided to facilitate the analysis of the PPI network for a specific neoplasm. Conclusions HMNPPID can hopefully become an important resource for the research on PPIs of human malignant neoplasms since it provides readily available data for healthcare professionals. Thus, they do not need to dig into a large amount of biomedical literatures any more, which may accelerate the researches on the PPIs of malignant neoplasms.

scholarly journals Evolutionary diversification of protein–protein interactions by interface add-ons

2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (40) ◽  
pp. E8333-E8342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian G. Plach ◽  
Florian Semmelmann ◽  
Florian Busch ◽  
Markus Busch ◽  
Leonhard Heizinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protein Interaction ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Complexes ◽  
Evolutionary Strategy ◽  
Structural Level ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Evolutionary Diversification

Cells contain a multitude of protein complexes whose subunits interact with high specificity. However, the number of different protein folds and interface geometries found in nature is limited. This raises the question of how protein–protein interaction specificity is achieved on the structural level and how the formation of nonphysiological complexes is avoided. Here, we describe structural elements called interface add-ons that fulfill this function and elucidate their role for the diversification of protein–protein interactions during evolution. We identified interface add-ons in 10% of a representative set of bacterial, heteromeric protein complexes. The importance of interface add-ons for protein–protein interaction specificity is demonstrated by an exemplary experimental characterization of over 30 cognate and hybrid glutamine amidotransferase complexes in combination with comprehensive genetic profiling and protein design. Moreover, growth experiments showed that the lack of interface add-ons can lead to physiologically harmful cross-talk between essential biosynthetic pathways. In sum, our complementary in silico, in vitro, and in vivo analysis argues that interface add-ons are a practical and widespread evolutionary strategy to prevent the formation of nonphysiological complexes by specializing protein–protein interactions.

scholarly journals How helpful are the protein-protein interaction databases and which ones?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai ◽  
Sravanthi Davuluri ◽  
Kriti Tiwary ◽  
Sithalechumi Narayanan ◽  
Sailaja Oguru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Protein Interaction ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Protein Protein Interactions ◽  
Web Interfaces ◽  
Protein Protein Interaction ◽  
Usage Frequency ◽  
First Time ◽  
Different Tissues ◽  
The Web

AbstractProtein-protein interactions (PPIs) are critical, and so are the databases and tools (resources) concerning PPIs. But in absence of systematic comparisons, biologists/bioinformaticians may be forced to make a subjective selection among such protein interaction databases and tools. In fact, a comprehensive list of such bioinformatics resources has not been reported so far. For the first time, we compiled 375 PPI resources, short-listed and performed preliminary comparison of 125 important ones (both lists available publicly at startbioinfo.com), and then systematically compared human PPIs from 16 carefully-selected databases. General features have been first compared in detail. The coverage of ‘experimentally verified’ vs. all PPIs, as well as those significant in case of disease-associated and other types of genes among the chosen databases has been compared quantitatively. This has been done in two ways: outputs manually obtained using web-interfaces, and all interactions downloaded from the databases. For the first approach, PPIs obtained in response to gene queries using the web interfaces were compared. As a query set, 108 genes associated with different tissues (specific to kidney, testis, and uterus, and ubiquitous) or diseases (breast cancer, lung cancer, Alzheimer’s, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, and cardiomyopathy) were chosen. PPI-coverage for well-studied genes was also compared with that of less-studied ones. For the second approach, the back-end-data from the databases was downloaded and compared. Based on the results, we recommend the use of STRING and UniHI for retrieving the majority of ‘experimentally verified’ protein interactions, and hPRINT and STRING for obtaining maximum number of ‘total’ (experimentally verified as well as predicted) PPIs. The analysis of experimentally verified PPIs found exclusively in each database revealed that STRING contributed about 71% of exclusive hits. Overall, hPRINT, STRING and IID together retrieved ~94% of ‘total’ protein interactions available in the databases. The coverage of certain databases was skewed for some gene-types. The results also indicate that the database usage frequency may not correlate with their advantages, thereby justifying the need for more frequent studies of this nature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document