Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
PLoS Comput Biol ; 10(7): e1003741, 2014 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25079060

ABSTRACT

Advances reported over the last few years and the increasing availability of protein crystal structure data have greatly improved structure-based druggability approaches. However, in practice, nearly all druggability estimation methods are applied to protein crystal structures as rigid proteins, with protein flexibility often not directly addressed. The inclusion of protein flexibility is important in correctly identifying the druggability of pockets that would be missed by methods based solely on the rigid crystal structure. These include cryptic pockets and flexible pockets often found at protein-protein interaction interfaces. Here, we apply an approach that uses protein modeling in concert with druggability estimation to account for light protein backbone movement and protein side-chain flexibility in protein binding sites. We assess the advantages and limitations of this approach on widely-used protein druggability sets. Applying the approach to all mammalian protein crystal structures in the PDB results in identification of 69 proteins with potential druggable cryptic pockets.


Subject(s)
Pharmaceutical Preparations/metabolism , Protein Binding , Protein Conformation , Proteins/chemistry , Proteome/chemistry , Animals , Binding Sites , Drug Design , Mammals , Models, Molecular , Models, Statistical , Naphthalenes/chemistry , Naphthalenes/metabolism , Pharmaceutical Preparations/chemistry , Pliability , Proteins/metabolism , Proteome/metabolism , Proteomics/methods , Reproducibility of Results
2.
PLoS One ; 8(12): e82849, 2013.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24340062

ABSTRACT

Predicting changes in protein binding affinity due to single amino acid mutations helps us better understand the driving forces underlying protein-protein interactions and design improved biotherapeutics. Here, we use the MM-GBSA approach with the OPLS2005 force field and the VSGB2.0 solvent model to calculate differences in binding free energy between wild type and mutant proteins. Crucially, we made no changes to the scoring model as part of this work on protein-protein binding affinity--the energy model has been developed for structure prediction and has previously been validated only for calculating the energetics of small molecule binding. Here, we compare predictions to experimental data for a set of 418 single residue mutations in 21 targets and find that the MM-GBSA model, on average, performs well at scoring these single protein residue mutations. Correlation between the predicted and experimental change in binding affinity is statistically significant and the model performs well at picking "hotspots," or mutations that change binding affinity by more than 1 kcal/mol. The promising performance of this physics-based method with no tuned parameters for predicting binding energies suggests that it can be transferred to other protein engineering problems.


Subject(s)
Amino Acids/chemistry , Computational Biology/methods , Mutation , Algorithms , Animals , Computer Simulation , DNA Mutational Analysis , Humans , Hydrogen Bonding , Models, Molecular , Protein Binding , Protein Interaction Mapping , Protein Structure, Secondary , Software , Solvents , Thermodynamics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...