A structural database of chain–chain and domain–domain interfaces of proteins
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
In this study, we mined the PDB and created a structural library of 178,465 interfaces that mediate protein–protein/domain–domain interactions. Interfaces involving the same CATH fold(s) were clustered together. Our analysis of the library reveals similarities between chain–chain and domain–domain interactions. The library also illustrates how a single protein fold can interact with multiple folds using similar interfaces. The library is hence a useful resource to study the types of interactions between protein folds. Analyzing the data in the library reveals various interesting aspects of protein–protein and domain–domain interactions such as how proteins belonging to folds that interact with many other folds also have high number of Enzyme Commission terms. These data could be utilized to seek potential binding partners. It can also be utilized to investigate the different ways in which two or more folds interact with one another structurally. We constructed a statistical potential of pair preferences of amino acids across the interface for chain–chain and domain–domain interactions separately. They are quite similar further lending credence to the notion that domain–domain interfaces could be used to study chain–chain interactions. We analyzed protein complexes modeled by AlphaFold2 and RoseTTAFold and noticed that some of the modes of interaction involve folds and interfaces that have not been observed to bind in the PDB. Lastly and importantly, the library includes predicted small molecule‐binding sites at protein–protein interfaces. This has applications as interfaces containing small molecule‐binding sites can be easily targeted to prevent the interaction and perhaps form a part of a therapeutic strategy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Structure-based prediction of protein–protein interactions on a genome-wide scale
Zhang, Q. C., Petrey, D., Deng, L., Qiang, L., Shi, Y., Thu, C. A., Bisikirska, B., Lefebvre, C., Accili, D., Hunter, T., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11503 · Cited by 723 · see citing works
ECOD: an evolutionary classification of protein domains
Cheng, H., Schaeffer, R. D., Liao, Y., Kinch, L. N., Pei, J., Shi, S., Kim, B.-H., & Grishin, N. V. (2014) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003926 · Cited by 426 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The domain definitions/boundaries of individual proteins have been characterized in SCOP/SCOPe [29,30], CATH [31–33], Pfam [34] and Ecod [35] which can be utilized to identify interfaces between different protein domains.”
Protein-protein interaction networks: probing disease mechanisms using model systems
Kuzmanov, U., & Emili, A. (2013) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/gm441 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
Templates are available to model nearly all complexes of structurally characterized proteins
Kundrotas, P. J., Zhu, Z., Janin, J., & Vakser, I. A. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1200678109 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
DeepDrug3D: Classification of ligand-binding pockets in proteins with a convolutional neural network
Pu, L., Govindaraj, R. G., Lemoine, J. M., Wu, H.-C., & Brylinski, M. (2019) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006718 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Spatiotemporal identification of druggable binding sites using deep learning
Kozlovskii, I., & Popov, P. (2020) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-020-01350-0 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Exploiting Conformational Ensembles in Modeling Protein–Protein Interactions on the Proteome Scale
Kuzu, G., Gursoy, A., Nussinov, R., & Keskin, O. (2013) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr400006k · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Sen, N., & Madhusudhan, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Pune (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Madhusudhan, Mallur S.
- Venue
- Protein Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-08-13
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 9
- ISSN
- 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-896X
- OpenAlex
- W4291214695
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 0.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Protein Science (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India
- The Wellcome Trust DBT India Alliance
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein-protein interaction, domain-domain interactions, interchain interactions, protein interfaces, structural database, protein complexes, AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold, small molecule binding sites
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review