HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Janin, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Janin, J. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

REVIEW

Assessing predictions of protein–protein interaction: The CAPRI experiment

Laboratoire d’Enzymologie et Biochimie Structurales, CNRS, 91198-Gif-sur-Yvette, France

Reprint requests to: Joël Janin, Laboratoire d’Enzymologie et Biochimie Structurales, CNRS, 91198-Gif-sur-Yvette, France; e-mail: janin{at}lebs.cnrs-gif.fr; fax +33.1.69 82 31 29.

	Abstract

TOP Abstract Introduction The targets of CAPRI Assessing docking predictions Success and failure on... Progress in predictions Structural biologists, please... References

 
The Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI) experiment was designed in 2000 to test protein docking algorithms in blind predictions of the structure of protein–protein complexes. In four years, 17 complexes offered by crystallographers as targets prior to publication, have been subjected to structure prediction by docking their two components. Models of these complexes were submitted by predictor groups and assessed by comparing their geometry to the X-ray structure and by evaluating the quality of the prediction of the regions of interaction and of the pair wise residue contacts. Prediction was successful on 12 of the 17 targets, most of the failures being due to large conformation changes that the algorithms could not cope with. Progress in the prediction quality observed in four years indicates that the experiment is a powerful incentive to develop new procedures that allow for flexibility during docking and incorporate nonstructural information. We therefore call upon structural biologists who study protein–protein complexes to provide targets for further rounds of CAPRI predictions.

Keywords: protein–protein interaction; protein docking; structure prediction; conformation change

Article and publication are at http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/doi/10.1110/ps.041081905.

	Introduction

TOP Abstract Introduction The targets of CAPRI Assessing docking predictions Success and failure on... Progress in predictions Structural biologists, please... References

 
The Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI) is a community-wide experiment designed on the model of the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP). Both are blind prediction experiments that rely on the willingness of structural biologists to provide unpublished experimental structures as targets. CASP evaluates fold prediction algorithms (Venclovas et al. 2003), CAPRI tests docking algorithms that predict the structure of protein–protein complexes. CASP targets are single proteins, and predictors are given amino acid sequences. CAPRI targets are protein–protein complexes, and the prediction starts from the three-dimensional structure of the component proteins (Janin et al. 2003; Wodak and Mendez 2004).

Macromolecular interaction is a central theme of functional genomics, subject to large-scale genetic and biochemical studies in model organisms. Most gene products, whether protein or RNA, perform their functions in cells by interacting with other gene products. In yeast, the set of macromolecular interactions—the interactome—is at least an order of magnitude larger than the set of gene products. In humans, there may be hundreds of thousands of physical interactions, either pair wise contacts or multicomponent assemblies of polypeptide chains, that have physiological and possibly medical relevance. These assemblies are poorly represented in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), and they are likely to remain so in coming years. Structural genomics programs are designed to determine X-ray/NMR structures on a genome scale for individual gene products, not for multicomponent assemblies. Specific research programs combining crystallography, NMR, and cryoelectron microscopy, are being set up to do that, but the sampling of the interactome is likely to remain sparse in coming years while the space of individual protein structures are being progressively filled. Thus, there is a good case for testing in silico methods that generate structural models of the assemblies by docking their components. In many cases, we cannot access their atomic structures by experiment. In all cases, reliable models will greatly help in designing experiments, but we need objective estimates of the model quality and of the performance of docking methods.

	The targets of CAPRI

TOP Abstract Introduction The targets of CAPRI Assessing docking predictions Success and failure on... Progress in predictions Structural biologists, please... References

 
Protein–protein complexes are a subset of the interactome in which the components exist both in free and bound form. A complex taken from the PDB may be dissociated in the computer and reconstituted by docking the component molecules, still in their "bound" conformation. This may be useful as a test of the performance of a docking algorithm, but not of its predictive value: the answer is known in advance, conformational changes are ignored, "bound" docking is biased toward to correct answer by the exact complementarity of the two surfaces in contact. A realistic prediction must start with structural models of the free or "unbound" components. Cases where the PDB contains entries for both a complex and its free components are relatively few, and a selection of these is available to benchmark docking methods (Chen et al. 2003). The prediction of permanent assemblies such as oligomeric proteins, a closely related problem, cannot be assessed in this way because the subunit structures is not independently known, but some CAPRI targets were proteins which exist in two different oligomeric forms, one present in the PDB, the other to be predicted.

The ideal CAPRI target is the unpublished X-ray structure of a complex between two proteins of known structure, submitted for "unbound" docking prediction. Due to the paucity of those, "bound/unbound" complexes between a protein of known structure and a novel protein are also acceptable. In less than 4 years, 17 complexes have been submitted as targets, two to four at a time, in five rounds of predictions (Table 1). Five targets were "unbound," the others, "bound/unbound." On day zero of each round, component atomic coordinates are communicated to registered predictor groups who have a few weeks to submit models of the complexes to the http://capri.ebi.ac.uk Web site managed by K. Henrick at the European Bioinformatics Institute (Hinxton, UK). After that deadline, the CAPRI assessors (S. Wodak and R. Mendez, Free University of Brussels, Belgium) may start evaluating the models against the target X-ray structures.

	Assessing docking predictions

TOP Abstract Introduction The targets of CAPRI Assessing docking predictions Success and failure on... Progress in predictions Structural biologists, please... References

The biological quality of the models was judged on the prediction of, first, the R and L epitopes, then, of the pairwise contacts between R and L residues. If the R epitope comprises N_R residues in the target, n_R of which make ligand contacts in the model, the ratio f_R = n_R/N_R measures how well the model predicts the R epitope; its equivalent f_L does the same for the L epitope. A good model should also say which residues of R are in contact with which residues of L. This is measured by the fraction of native contacts f_nc = n_c/N_c, where N_c is the number of residue pairs in contact in the target, and n_c the number of those native contacts that are present in the model. Because n_c can be artificially increased by pushing the ligand into the receptor, we also reject all models that have too many nonnative contacts: more than the average number in other models plus two standard deviations.

The parameters I_rms, L_rms, and f_nc were combined to rank models. In models of the "high-quality" and "good" categories, a majority of epitope residues and at least 30% of the contact pairs are correctly predicted (f_nc > 0.3), and the L epitope is very close to its position in the X-ray structure (I_rms < 2 Å). Such models reproduce the overall geometry and many biologically significant features of the interaction, but not necessarily its atomic details. Models with 10%–30% of the native contact pairs and I_rms between 2 Å and 4 Å, are placed in the "acceptable" category. Although their geometry is poor, they should still be useful for site-directed mutagenesis and other experiments, because a large part of the epitopes must be correctly identified to yield f_nc > 0.1.

	Success and failure on CAPRI targets

TOP Abstract Introduction The targets of CAPRI Assessing docking predictions Success and failure on... Progress in predictions Structural biologists, please... References

 
Figure 1 represents a successful prediction of target T08, a complex between a fragment of laminin and domain G3 of nidogen (Takagi et al. 2003). The model shown here is at the limit of the "high-quality" and "good" categories. Three-quarters of the two epitopes and nearly half of the residue pairs in contact are correctly predicted, and the epitopes are at the right position in spite of a noticeable tilt relative to the X-ray structure. No attempt was made by the predictors to reproduce the conformation change at the N-terminus of the laminin fragment, but this change affects the contact only marginally. Nine predictor groups who use quite different docking algorithms submitted high- or good-quality models of T08. In contrast, the best models of target T01 were only "acceptable." T01 is a complex of a bacterial protein kinase with its substrate protein HPr (Fieulaine et al. 2002). The kinase is a hexamer that binds six HPr molecules in a symmetrical way (only one is drawn in Fig. 2). In the best models, HPr is shifted by over 5 Å relative to the X-ray structure, and only 20% of the residue pairs are reproduced, a disappointing result given that the interaction could safely be assumed to involve the active site of the kinase and the phosphorylated Ser46 of HPr. The reason for this failure is apparent on Figure 2B: in the X-ray structure, HPr binding implicates not one, but two kinase subunits, one through its active site as expected, the other through its C-terminal helix. The helix rotates in the complex to make with HPr a set of contacts that none of the groups predicted. A much better docking model was obtained when the C-terminal helix was left free to move, but that simulation could only be done "a posteriori" (Schneidman-Duhovny et al. 2003).

View larger version (65K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Successful prediction of the laminin–nidogen complex (target T08). In T08, a fragment of laminin (entry 1KLO) was docked on the "bound" nidogen domain G3. Nidogen is drawn as a blue surface, laminin as a ribbon: green in the X-ray structure (Takagi et al. 2003), red in this "good-quality" docking model. Predicted epitope positions are within 1.1 Å of their correct position, and 47% of the residue–residue contacts are reproduced, even though the elongated laminin fragment is tilted relative to the X-ray structure and no attempt was made to reproduce the conformation change seen at the bottom end of the fragment. (Courtesy of Dr. Z. Weng, Boston University, Boston, MA.)

View larger version (73K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. A difficult target: the HPr kinase–HPr complex (target T01). In T01, HPr (entry 1SPH) was docked on HPr kinase (entry 1JB1). The kinase is a symmetrical hexamer that binds six HPr molecules. (A) The three subunits forming the top trimer are drawn as a surface in different shades of gray; a bound HPr is drawn as a ribbon, blue in the X-ray structure (Fieulaine et al. 2002), red in an "acceptable" docking model that reproduces 20% of the residue–residue contact. In that model, HPr is tilted 34° and 5 Å away from the X-ray structure. Conserved residues colored cyan on the kinase surface, are part of the HPr binding site. (Adapted from Ben-Zeev et al. 2003, with permission of the authors.) (B) The same trimer seen from the left; HPr at the active site of the blue kinase subunit also interacts with the C-terminal helix of the purple subunit drawn as a ribbon. The helix is green in the free kinase, purple in the complex. A simulation of its rotation yields the position drawn in gold; HPr then moves to the docking position in dark blue, closer to the crystal structure than in the original prediction. (Adapted from Schneidman-Duhovny et al. 2003, with permission from the authors.)

Information from the literature could be used to guide docking in most cases. It was decisive in the case of T07, a complex between a bacterial superantigen and the T-cell receptor (Sundberg et al. 2002): a simple sequence homology search could locate a similar structure already in the PDB. In contrast, the fair amount of biochemical data that was available on HPr and the kinase in T01, or on dockerin and cohesin in T11, proved to be insufficient in the presence of conformation changes. Biochemical information frequently concerns the binding regions or residues, seldomly their pair-wise contacts or the geometry of the binding. Most docking procedures incorporate such information, either to limit the rigid-body search or to filter candidate solutions issued from the search. Experience shows that it is very useful, but not foolproof. Seven CAPRI targets were complexes of "unbound" protein antigens with "bound" antibody fragments (Table 2). Antibodies bind antigen through hypervariable loops of their V_L and V_H domains, which puts constraints on docking solutions. Five targets of this type have had good predictions: T02 and T03, two Fab complexes with large viral proteins, the T06 complex of -amylase with the V_HH domain of a camel single-chain antibody domain, T13, and T19. Predictors submitted models of these targets in which the epitope recognized by the antibody was correctly identified, with no help from the literature in several cases, and the geometry of binding was essentially right. In contrast, they failed entirely on two other complexes with -amylase (T04–T05) in which the V_HH domain makes a lateral contact that implicates frame-work residues, and only one hypervariable loop (Fig. 3). Conformation changes are not to be blamed here, for the antibody moiety was "bound" and the antigen essentially unchanged. "A posteriori" analysis indicates that the mode of binding seen in the X-ray structure either was outside the limits set to the search, or it had been rejected from the docking solutions as incompatible with established rules of antigen–antibody recognition.

View larger version (93K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Success and failure on antigen–antibody complexes (targets T04–6). All three targets are complexes of porcine -amylase (entry 1PIF) with the VHH domains of three different monoclonal camel antibodies (Desmyter et al. 2002). In T06, the VHH domain binds end on to the -amylase active site. High/good-quality docking models of this target were submitted by several CAPRI predictor groups. Instead, prediction failed entirely on T04 and T05, where the VHH domain makes with the antigen a lateral contact that involves framework residues as well as the H3 hypervariable loop.

	Progress in predictions

TOP Abstract Introduction The targets of CAPRI Assessing docking predictions Success and failure on... Progress in predictions Structural biologists, please... References

	Structural biologists, please help with targets!

TOP Abstract Introduction The targets of CAPRI Assessing docking predictions Success and failure on... Progress in predictions Structural biologists, please... References

 
The very raison d’être of CAPRI is to foster progress in prediction methods and performance. The improvement seen in the last two rounds is a strong incentive to go on with the experiment in coming years. To do that, we call upon the structural biologists who study protein–protein complexes by X-ray or NMR to provide new targets. When both components are of known structure, all we need to start a round of docking prediction is the two PDB entry codes. Alternatively, one component may be given as an entry code and the other as "bound" atomic coordinates communicated to us by the authors. In either case, a complete set of coordinates should later be forwarded to the CAPRI assessors; they will remain confidential until released by the authors or the PDB. Whether successful or not, CAPRI predictions will publicize the work of the structural biologists who submit targets, and help integrating the structural approach in the general field of protein–protein interaction.

	Acknowledgments

 
The CAPRI Organizing Committee comprises Dr. Kim Henrick (Hinxton, UK), Joël Janin (LEBS-CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette), John Moult (Rockville, MD), Lynn Ten Eyck (San Diego, CA), Michael Sternberg (London, UK), Sandor Vajda (Boston, MA), Ilya Vakser (Stony Brook, NY), Shoshana Wodak (Brussels, Belgium). We are grateful to all crystallographers who have provided targets: Dr. Sonia Fieulaine, Sylvie Nessler, Marcel Knossow, Carole Barbey, Frédéric Eghiaian, Herman van Tilbeurgh, Marc Graille (LEBS-CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette, France), Felix Rey, Marie-Christine Vaney, Stéphane Bressanelli (LVMS-CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette, France), Frederic Ducancel (CEA-Saclay, France), Christian Cambillau (AFMB, Marseille, France), Eric Sundberg, Roy Mariuzza (CARB, Rockville, MD), Timothy Springer (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA), Maria Romao, Anna Luisa Carvalho (University of Lisbon, Portugal), Roberto Dominguez (Boston Research Institute, Boston, MA), Stefaan Sansen, Anja Rabijns (Leuwen University, Belgium). The figures in this paper are courtesies of Dr. Zhiping Weng (Boston University, Boston, MA), Miri Eisenstein (Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel), and Haim Wolfson (Tel Aviv University, Israel).

	References

TOP Abstract Introduction The targets of CAPRI Assessing docking predictions Success and failure on... Progress in predictions Structural biologists, please... References

 
Barbey-Martin, C., Gigant, B., Bizebard, T., Calder, L.J., Wharton, S.A., Skehel, J.J., and Knossow, M. 2002. An antibody that prevents the hemagglutinin low pH fusogenic transition. Virology 294: 70–74.[CrossRef][Medline]

Ben-Zeev, E., Berchanski, A., Heifetz, A., Shapira, B., and Eisenstein, M. 2003. Prediction of the unknown: Inspiring experience with the CAPRI experiment. Proteins 52: 41–6.[CrossRef][Medline]

Bressanelli, S., Stiasny, K., Allison, S.L., Stura, E.A., Duquerroy, S., Lescar, J., Heinz, F.X., and Rey, F.A. 2004. Structure of a flavivirus envelope glycoprotein in its low pH-induced membrane fusion conformation. EMBO J. 23: 728–738.[CrossRef][Medline]

Carvalho, A.L., Dias, F.M.V., Prates, J.A.M., Nagy, T., Gilbert, H.J., Davies, G.J., Ferreira, L.M.A., Romao, M.J., and Fontes, C.M.G.A. 2004. Cellulosome assembly revealed by the crystal structure of the cohesin–dockerin complex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100: 13809–13014.

Chen, R., Mintseris, J., Janin, J., and Weng, Z. 2003. A protein–protein docking benchmark. Proteins 52: 88–91.[CrossRef][Medline]

Desmyter, A., Spinelli, S., Payan, F., Lauwereys, M., Wyns, L., Muyldermans, S., and Cambillau, C. 2002. Three camelid VHH domains in complex with porcine pancreatic -amylase. J. Biol. Chem. 277: 23645–23650.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Eghiaian, F., Grosclaude, J., Lesceu, S., Debey, P., Doublet, B., Treguer, E., Rezaei, H., and Knossow, M. 2004. Insight into the PrPC PrPSc conversion from the structures of antibody-bound ovine prion scrapie-susceptibility variants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101: 10254–10259.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Fieulaine, S., Morera, S., Poncet, S., Mijakovic, I., Galinier, A., Janin, J., Deutscher, J., and Nessler, S. 2002. X-ray structure of a bifunctional protein kinase in complex with its protein substrate HPr. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99: 13437–13441[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Graille, M., Mora, L., Buckingham, R.H., van Tilbeurgh, H., and de Zamaroczy, M. 2004. Structural inhibition of the colicin D tRNase by the tRNA-mimicking immunity protein. EMBO J. 23: 1474–1482.[CrossRef][Medline]

Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H., and Nussinov, R. 2002. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 47: 409–443.[CrossRef][Medline]

Janin, J., Henrick, K., Moult, J., Ten Eyck, L., Sternberg, M., Vajda, S., Wakser, I., and Wodak, S.J. 2003. CAPRI: A critical assessment of predicted interactions. Proteins 52: 2–9.[CrossRef][Medline]

Mendez, R., Leplae, R., De Maria, L., and Wodak, S.J. 2003. Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods. Proteins 52: 51–67.[CrossRef][Medline]

Sansen, S., De Ranter, C.J., Gebruers, K., Brijs, K., Courtin, C.M., Delcour, J.A., and Rabijns, A. 2004. Structural basis for inhibition of Aspergillus niger xylanase by triticum aestivum xylanase inhibitor-I. J. Biol. Chem. 279: 36022–36028.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Schneidman-Duhovny, D., Inbar, Y., Polak, V., Shatsky, M., Halperin, I., Benyamini, H., Barzilai, A., Dror, O., Haspel, N., Nussinov, R., et al. 2003. Taking geometry to its edge: Fast unbound rigid (and hinge-bent) docking. Proteins 52: 107–112[CrossRef][Medline]

Smith, G.R. and Sternberg, M.J. 2002. Prediction of protein–protein interactions by docking methods. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12: 28–35.[CrossRef][Medline]

Sunberg, E.J., Li, H., Llera, A.S., McCormick, J.K., Tormo, J., Schlievert, P.M., Karjalainen, K., and Mariuzza, R.A. 2002. Structures of two streptococcal superantigens bound to TCR chains reveals diversity in the architecture of T cell signalling complexes. Structure 10: 687–699.[Medline]

Takagi, J., Yang, Y., Liu, J.H., Wang, J.H., and Springer, T.A. 2003. Complex between nidogen and laminin fragments reveals a paradigmatic -propeller interface. Nature 424: 969–973.[CrossRef][Medline]

Terrak, M., Kerff, F., Langsetmo, K., Tao, T., and Dominguez, R. 2004. Structural basis of protein phosphatase 1 regulation. Nature 429: 780–784.[CrossRef][Medline]

Thouvenin, E., Schoehn, G., Rey, F., Petitpas, I., Mathieu, M., Vaney, M.C., Cohen, J., Kohli, E., Pothier, P., and Hewat, E. 2001. Antibody inhibition of the transcriptase activity of rotavirus DLP: A structural view. J. Mol. Biol. 307: 161–172.[CrossRef][Medline]

Valencia, A. and Pazos, F. 2002. Computational methods for the prediction of protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12: 368–373.[CrossRef][Medline]

Venclovas, C., Zemla, A., Fidelis, K., and Moult, J. 2003. Assessment of progress over the CASP experiments. Proteins 53: 585–589.

Wodak, S. and Janin, J. 2002. The structural basis of macromolecular recognition. Adv. Protein Chem. 61: 9–68.[Medline]

Wodak, S.J. and Mendez, R. 2004. Predictions of protein–protein interactions: The CAPRI experiment, its evaluation and implications. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 14: 242–249.[CrossRef][Medline]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. I. Lesk and M. J. E. Sternberg 3D-Garden: a system for modelling protein-protein complexes based on conformational refinement of ensembles generated with the marching cubes algorithm Bioinformatics, May 1, 2008; 24(9): 1137 - 1144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Pulim, J. Bienkowska, and B. Berger LTHREADER: Prediction of extracellular ligand-receptor interactions in cytokines using localized threading Protein Sci., February 1, 2008; 17(2): 279 - 292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. S. Negi, C. H. Schein, N. Oezguen, T. D. Power, and W. Braun InterProSurf: a web server for predicting interacting sites on protein surfaces Bioinformatics, December 15, 2007; 23(24): 3397 - 3399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Lorenzen and Y. Zhang Monte Carlo refinement of rigid-body protein docking structures with backbone displacement and side-chain optimization Protein Sci., December 1, 2007; 16(12): 2716 - 2725. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Rossi, M. Isorce, S. Morin, J. Flocard, K. Arumugam, S. Crouzy, M. Vivaudou, and S. Redon Adaptive torsion-angle quasi-statics: a general simulation method with applications to protein structure analysis and design Bioinformatics, July 1, 2007; 23(13): i408 - i417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Schueler-Furman, C. Wang, P. Bradley, K. Misura, and D. Baker Progress in Modeling of Protein Structures and Interactions Science, October 28, 2005; 310(5748): 638 - 642. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Janin, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Janin, J. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?