PreprintCited by 40Protein Structure and DynamicsEnzyme Structure and FunctionMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prediction of protein assemblies by structure sampling followed by interface-focused scoring

Open access
Olechnovič, Kliment, Valančauskas, Lukas, Dapkūnas, Justas, Venclovas, Česlovas·2023·Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics

Preprint — published as 10.1002/prot.26569 · Paper page

Abstract

Proteins often function as part of permanent or transient multimeric complexes, and understanding function of these assemblies requires knowledge of their three-dimensional structures. While the ability of AlphaFold to predict structures of individual proteins with unprecedented accuracy has revolutionized structural biology, modeling structures of protein assemblies remains challenging. To address this challenge, we developed a protocol for predicting structures of protein complexes involving model sampling followed by scoring focused on the subunit-subunit interaction interface. In this protocol, we diversified AlphaFold models by varying construction and pairing of multiple sequence alignments as well as increasing the number of recycles. In cases when AlphaFold failed to assemble a full protein complex or produced unreliable results, additional diverse models were constructed by docking of monomers or subcomplexes. All the models were then scored using a newly developed method, VoroIF-jury, which relies only on structural information. Notably, VoroIF-jury is independent of AlphaFold self-assessment scores and therefore can be used to rank models originating from different structure prediction methods. We tested our protocol in CASP15 and obtained top results, significantly outperforming the standard AlphaFold-Multimer pipeline. Analysis of our results showed that the accuracy of our assembly models was capped mainly by structure sampling rather than model scoring. This observation suggests that better sampling, especially for the antibody-antigen complexes, may lead to further improvement. Our protocol is expected to be useful for modeling and/or scoring protein assemblies.

Overview

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 · 10.1101/2023.03.07.531468

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. 2021, Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-Round XIV, Proteins, 89, 1607, 10.1002/prot.26237 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 2021, Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome, Nature, 596, 590, 10.1038/s41586-021-03828-1 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1093/NAR/GKAB1061 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 2022, ColabFold: making protein folding accessible to all, Nat Methods, 19, 679, 10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Evans R , O’Neill M , Pritzel A , Antropova N , Senior A , Green T , Žídek dek A , Bates R , Blackwell S , Yim J , Ronneberger O , Bodenstein S , Zielinski M , Bridgland A , Potapenko A , Cowie A , Tunyasuvunakool K , Jain R , Clancy E , Kohli P , Jumper J , Hassabis D. Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer. bioRxiv 2022:2021.10.04.463034. · DOI · Paper page
  6. 2022, Benchmarking AlphaFold for protein complex modeling reveals accuracy determinants, Protein Sci, 31, e4379, 10.1002/pro.4379 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1038/s41467-022-33729-4 · DOI
  8. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002195 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1093/nar/gkaa946 · DOI
  10. 2020, MGnify: the microbiome analysis resource in 2020, Nucleic Acids Res, 48, D570
  11. UniProt Consortium, 2023, UniProt: the Universal Protein Knowledgebase in 2023, Nucleic Acids Res, 51, D523, 10.1093/nar/gkac1052 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1093/nar/gkv1189 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1006/jmbi.1997.1203 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(20000501)39:2<178::AID-PROT8>3.0.CO;2-6 · DOI
  15. 2016, Spherical polar Fourier assembly of protein complexes with arbitrary point group symmetry, J Appl Cryst, 49, 158, 10.1107/S1600576715022931 · DOI
  16. CASP-COVID participants, 2021, Modeling SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the CASP-commons experiment, Proteins, 89, 1987, 10.1002/prot.26231 · DOI
  17. 2017, VoroMQA: Assessment of protein structure quality using interatomic contact areas, Proteins, 85, 1131, 10.1002/prot.25278 · DOI
  18. 2020, Contact Area-Based Structural Analysis of Proteins and Their Complexes Using CAD-Score, Methods Mol Biol, 2112, 75, 10.1007/978-1-0716-0270-6_6 · DOI
  19. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005659 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1016/j.jmb.2017.12.007 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 2020, COMER2: GPU-accelerated sensitive and specific homology searches, Bioinformatics, 36, 3570, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa185 · DOI
  22. 2023, The COMER web server for protein analysis by homology, Bioinformatics, 39, btac807, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac807 · DOI
  23. 10.1093/nar/gkac387 · DOI
  24. 2017, The PPI3D web server for searching, analyzing and modeling protein-protein interactions in the context of 3D structures, Bioinformatics, 33, 935, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw756 · DOI
  25. 2021, RCSB Protein Data Bank: powerful new tools for exploring 3D structures of biological macromolecules for basic and applied research and education in fundamental biology, biomedicine, biotechnology, bioengineering and energy sciences, Nucleic Acids Res, 49, D437, 10.1093/nar/gkaa1038 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 2020, Template-Based Modeling of Protein Complexes Using the PPI3D Web Server, Methods Mol Biol, 2165, 139, 10.1007/978-1-0716-0708-4_8 · DOI
  27. 2021, Modeling of protein complexes in CASP14 with emphasis on the interaction interface prediction, Proteins, 89, 1834, 10.1002/prot.26167 · DOI
  28. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu744 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/prot.25408 · DOI
  30. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt473 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 2022, US-align: universal structure alignments of proteins, nucleic acids, and macromolecular complexes, Nat Methods, 19, 1109, 10.1038/s41592-022-01585-1 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 2019, Structural modeling of protein complexes: Current capabilities and challenges, Proteins, 87, 1222, 10.1002/prot.25774 · DOI
  33. 2021, Assessment of the CASP14 assembly predictions, Proteins, 89, 1787, 10.1002/prot.26199 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 2021, Prediction of protein assemblies, the next frontier: The CASP14-CAPRI experiment, Proteins, 89, 1800, 10.1002/prot.26222 · DOI
  35. 2021, Nonameric structures of the cytoplasmic domain of FlhA and SctV in the context of the full-length protein, PLoS One, 16, e0252800, 10.1371/journal.pone.0252800 · DOI
  36. 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00302 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 2020, Application of docking methodologies to modeled proteins, Proteins, 88, 1180, 10.1002/prot.25889 · DOI
  38. 2020, Computational approaches to therapeutic antibody design: established methods and emerging trends, Brief Bioinform, 21, 1549, 10.1093/bib/bbz095 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 2022, Advances in computational structure-based antibody design, Curr Opin Struct Biol, 74, 102379, 10.1016/j.sbi.2022.102379 · DOI
  40. 2021, An expanded benchmark for antibody-antigen docking and affinity prediction reveals insights into antibody recognition determinants, Structure, 29, 606, 10.1016/j.str.2021.01.005 · DOI
  41. Wallner B. AFsample: Improving Multimer Prediction with AlphaFold using Aggressive Sampling. bioRxiv; 2022. p 2022.12.20.521205. · DOI
  42. Wu R , Ding F , Wang R , Shen R , Zhang X , Luo S , Su C , Wu Z , Xie Q , Berger B , Ma J , Peng J. High-resolution de novo structure prediction from primary sequence. bioRxiv; 2022. p 2022.07.21.500999. · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1126/science.abj8754 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Lin Z , Akin H , Rao R , Hie B , Zhu Z , Lu W , Smetanin N , Verkuil R , Kabeli O , Shmueli Y , Costa A dos S , Fazel-Zarandi M , Sercu T , Candido S , Rives A. Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model. bioRxiv; 2022. p 2022.07.20.500902. · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Olechnovič, K., Valančauskas, L., Dapkūnas, J., & Venclovas, Č.
Affiliations
Vilnius University (LT)
Venue
Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2023-03-08
Volume
91
Issue
12
Pages
1724-1733
ISSN
0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385798891
Cited by
40
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Lietuvos Mokslo Taryba (S-MIP-21-35)
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
protein complex structure prediction, protein assembly, AlphaFold, subunit-subunit interface, model ranking, immune complexes, multimeric complexes, CASP15
MeSH terms
Proteins, Computational Biology

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