PreprintCited by 85Protein Structure and DynamicsEnzyme Structure and FunctionMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications

Protein complex prediction using Rosetta, AlphaFold, and mass spectrometry covalent labeling

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41467-022-35593-8 · Paper page

Abstract

Structural mass spectrometry offers several techniques for the characterization of protein structures. Covalent labeling (CL) in combination with mass spectrometry can be used as an analytical tool to study and determine structural properties of protein-protein complexes. Degrees of modification obtained from CL experiments for specific labeled residues can be compared between the unbound and bound states of complexes. This analysis can yield insights into structural features of these protein assemblies, specifically the proximity of specific residues to the protein-protein interface. However, this data is sparse and does not unambiguously elucidate protein structure. Thus, computational algorithms are needed to deduce structure from the CL data. In this work we present a novel hybrid method that combines models of protein complex subunits generated with AlphaFold with differential CL data via a CL-guided protein-protein docking in Rosetta. In a benchmark set, the RMSD (root-mean-square deviation) of the best-scoring models was below 3.6 Å for 5/5 complexes with inclusion of CL data, whereas the same quality was only achieved for 1/5 complexes without CL data. The average improvement in RMSD observed upon inclusion of CL data was 5.2 Å. This study suggests that our integrated approach can successfully use data obtained from CL experiments to distinguish between nativelike and non-nativelike models. Significance Statement: Structural mass spectrometry can be a powerful and versatile approach to characterize the structure of protein complexes. Data obtained from covalent labeling mass spectrometry can provide insights into higher order protein structure (particularly with respect to residue interactions and solvent accessibility) but needs to be supplemented by computational techniques to elucidate accurate, atomic-detail structural information. Here, we present a method to combine bioanalytical data obtained from covalent labeling with models generated using AlphaFold to accurately predict protein-protein complexes in Rosetta. Differential covalent labeling data can be used to determine the proximity of residues to the binding interface of complexes which we utilized to analyze computational models and improve structure prediction algorithms.

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 · 10.1101/2022.04.30.490108

Cites

1 of 1 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

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: 55

  1. 10.1038/nmeth.1265 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 2020, Exploring the structure and dynamics of macromolecular complexes by native mass spectrometry, Journal of Proteomics, 222, 103799, 10.1016/j.jprot.2020.103799 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/nature01513 · DOI
  4. 10.1093/nar/28.1.235 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.jmr.2004.11.021 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/s41586-020-2833-4 · DOI
  7. 10.1136/mp.53.1.8 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/mas.20082 · DOI
  9. 10.1021/ac051294f · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.drudis.2013.07.019 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/j.jasms.2007.11.005 · DOI
  12. 10.1021/ac200452b · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1038/nchem.1889 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1002/pmic.200600247 · DOI
  15. 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b02875 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/jms.1808 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2018.04.002 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2014.10.001 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/s41580-019-0163-x · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1038/s41586-019-1923-7 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 2019, Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)—Round XIII, Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 87, 1011, 10.1002/prot.25823 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1002/prot.26171 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1093/nar/gnh082 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/nar/gkx407 · DOI
  26. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu097 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/978-1-4939-7759-8_27 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/nprot.2010.32 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/prot.21117 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1038/s41592-020-0848-2 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1063/5.0026025 · DOI
  33. 10.1146/annurev-physchem-082720-123928 · DOI
  34. 2017, Computational modeling of protein assemblies, Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 44, 179, 10.1016/j.sbi.2017.04.006 · DOI
  35. 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b01624 · DOI
  36. 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00101 · DOI
  37. 10.1038/s41467-020-20549-7 · DOI
  38. 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c00395 · DOI
  39. 10.1021/jasms.1c00373 · DOI
  40. 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00077 · DOI
  41. 10.1016/j.str.2021.10.006 · DOI
  42. 10.1101/2021.05.27.445812 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.jsb.2016.08.001 · DOI
  44. 2017, Simulated Isotope Exchange Patterns Enable Protein Structure Determination, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 56, 9396, 10.1002/anie.201704604 · DOI
  45. 10.1021/acs.biochem.7b00643 · DOI
  46. 2021, AI revolutions in biology, EMBO reports, 22, e54046, 10.15252/embr.202154046 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1021/bi034914k · DOI
  48. 10.1021/bi901748h · DOI
  49. 10.1074/jbc.M111.297853 · DOI
  50. 10.1002/prot.20264 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1371/journal.pone.0161879 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1371/journal.pone.0022477 · DOI
  53. 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00789 · DOI
  54. 10.1021/acscentsci.8b00912 · DOI
  55. 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c05468 · DOI

Authors
Drake, Z. C., Seffernick, J. T., & Lindert, S.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Lindert, Steffen
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2022-04-30
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
7846-7846
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4313339743
Cited by
85
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (GM128577)
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM128577, P41GM128577)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Structural Biology › Enzyme Structure and Function
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Keywords
protein-protein complex prediction, covalent labeling, protein-protein docking, AlphaFold, Rosetta, mass spectrometry
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Mass Spectrometry

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