Cited by 111Protein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Predicting the Impact of Missense Mutations on Protein–Protein Binding Affinity

Open access
Li, Minghui, Petukh, Marharyta, Alexov, Emil, Panchenko, Anna R.·2014·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Abstract

The crucial prerequisite for proper biological function is the protein’s ability to establish highly selective interactions with macromolecular partners. A missense mutation that alters the protein binding affinity may cause significant perturbations or complete abolishment of the function, potentially leading to diseases. The availability of computational methods to evaluate the impact of mutations on protein–protein binding is critical for a wide range of biomedical applications. Here, we report an efficient computational approach for predicting the effect of single and multiple missense mutations on protein–protein binding affinity. It is based on a well-tested simulation protocol for structure minimization, modified MM-PBSA and statistical scoring energy functions with parameters optimized on experimental sets of several thousands of mutations. Our simulation protocol yields very good agreement between predicted and experimental values with Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.69 and 0.63 and root-mean-square errors of 1.20 and 1.90 kcal mol–1 for single and multiple mutations, respectively. Compared with other available methods, our approach achieves high speed and prediction accuracy and can be applied to large datasets generated by modern genomics initiatives. In addition, we report a crucial role of water model and the polar solvation energy in estimating the changes in binding affinity. Our analysis also reveals that prediction accuracy and effect of mutations on binding strongly depends on the type of mutation and its location in a protein complex.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ct401022c

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Foloppe N.; MacKerell A. D. All-atom empirical force field for nucleic acids: I. Parameter optimization based on small molecule and condensed phase macromolecular target data. J. Comput. Chem. 2000, 21, 86– 104.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, M., Petukh, M., Alexov, E., & Panchenko, A. R.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Clemson University (US)
Corresponding author
Panchenko, Anna R.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2014-02-27
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
1770-1780
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W1978287590
Cited by
111
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM093937)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
missense mutations, protein-protein binding affinity, binding affinity prediction, multiple mutations, MM-PBSA, water model, protein complexes

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