Biomedical subjects

Maxim Shatsky

Publications and source records attributed to Maxim Shatsky.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Taking geometry to its edge: fast unbound rigid (and hinge-bent) docking.

We present a very efficient rigid "unbound" soft docking methodology, which is based on detection of geometric shape complementarity, allowing liberal steric clash at the interface. The method is based on local shape feature matching, avoiding the exhaustive search of the 6D transformation space. Our experiments at CAPRI rounds 1 and 2 show that although the method does not perform an exhaustive search of the 6D transformation space, the "correct" solution is never lost. However, such a solution might rank low for large proteins, because there are alternatives with significantly larger geometrically compatible interfaces. In many cases this problem can be resolved by successful a priori focusing on the vicinity of potential binding sites as well as the extension of the technique to flexible (hinge-bent) docking. This is demonstrated in the experiments performed as a lesson from our CAPRI experience.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2002

Flexible protein alignment and hinge detection.

Here we present a novel technique for the alignment of flexible proteins. The method does not require an a priori knowledge of the flexible hinge regions. The FlexProt algorithm simultaneously detects the hinge regions and aligns the rigid subparts of the molecules. Our technique is not sensitive to insertions and deletions. Numerous methods have been developed to solve rigid structural comparisons. Unlike FlexProt, all previously developed methods designed to solve the protein flexible alignment require an a priori knowledge of the hinge regions. The FlexProt method is based on 3-D pattern-matching algorithms combined with graph theoretic techniques. The algorithm is highly efficient. For example, it performs a structural comparison of a pair of proteins with 300 amino acids in about 7 s on a 400-MHz desktop PC. We provide experimental results obtained with this algorithm. First, we flexibly align pairs of proteins taken from the database of motions. These are extended by taking additional proteins from the same SCOP family. Next, we present some of the results obtained from exhaustive all-against-all flexible structural comparisons of 1329 SCOP family representatives. Our results include relatively high-scoring flexible structural alignments between the C-terminal merozoite surface protein vs. tissue factor; class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthase, histocompatibility antigen vs. neonatal FC receptor; tyrosine-protein kinase C-SRC vs. haematopoetic cell kinase (HCK); tyrosine-protein kinase C-SRC vs. titine protein (autoinhibited serine kinase domain); and tissue factor vs. hormone-binding protein. These are illustrated and discussed, showing the capabilities of this structural alignment algorithm, which allows un-predefined hinge-based motions.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2002

Multiple diverse ligands binding at a single protein site: a matter of pre-existing populations.

Here, we comment on the steadily increasing body of data showing that proteins with specificity actually bind ligands of diverse shapes, sizes, and composition. Such a phenomenon is not surprising when one considers that binding is a dynamic process with populations in equilibrium and that the shape of the binding site is strongly influenced by the molecular partner. It derives implicitly from the concept of populations. All proteins, specific and nonspecific, exist in ensembles of substates. If the library of ligands in solution is large enough, favorably matching ligands with altered shapes and sizes can be expected to bind, with a redistribution of the protein populations. Point mutations at spatially distant sites may exert large conformational rearrangements and hinge effects, consistent with mutations away from the binding site leading to population shifts and (cross-)drug resistance. A similar effect is observed in protein superfamilies, in which different sequences with similar topologies display similar large-scale dynamic motions. The hinges are frequently at analogous sites, yet with different substrate specificity. Similar topologies yield similar conformational isomers, although with different distributions of population times, owing to the change in the conditions, that is, the change in the sequences. In turn, different distributions relate to binding of different sizes and shapes. Hence, the binding site shape and size are defined by the ligand. They are not independent entities of fixed proportions and cannot be analyzed independently of the binding partner. Such a proposition derives from viewing proteins as dynamic distributions, presenting to the incoming ligands a range of binding site shapes. It illustrates how presumably specific binding molecules can bind multiple ligands. In terms of drug design, the ability of a single receptor to recognize many dissimilar ligands shows the need to consider more diverse molecules. It provides a rationale for higher affinity inhibitors that are not derived from substrates at their transition states and indicates flexible docking schemes.

Binding Sites↗