Bioinformatics Advance Access published online on March 7, 2006
Bioinformatics, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl079
1 Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Motivation: Protein assemblies are currently poorly represented in structural databases and their structural elucidation is a key goal in biology. Here we analyse clefts in protein surfaces, likely to correspond to binding "hot-spots", and rank them according to sequence conservation and simple measures of physical properties including hydrophobicity, desolvation, electrostatics and van der Waals energies, to predict which are involved in binding in the native complex. Results: The resulting differences between predicting binding-sites at protein-protein and protein-ligand interfaces are striking. There is a high level of prediction accuracy (
Received January 20, 2006
Revised February 14, 2006
Accepted February 28, 2006
Article
Predicting protein interaction sites: binding hot-spots in protein-protein and protein-ligand interfaces
Nicholas J. Burgoyne 1
and
Richard M. Jackson 1 *
Richard M. Jackson, E-mail: r.m.jackson{at}leeds.ac.uk
![]()
Abstract
93%) for protein-ligand interactions, based on the following attributes: van der Waals potential, electrostatic potential, desolvation and surface conservation. Generally, the prediction accuracy for protein-protein interactions is lower, with the exception of enzymes. Our results show that the ease of cleft desolvation or "de-wetting" is strongly predictive of interfaces and strongly maintained across all classes of protein binding interface.
Associate Editor: Dmitrij Frishman
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
N. Tuncbag, A. Gursoy, and O. Keskin Identification of computational hot spots in protein interfaces: combining solvent accessibility and inter-residue potentials improves the accuracy Bioinformatics, June 15, 2009; 25(12): 1513 - 1520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Ezkurdia, L. Bartoli, P. Fariselli, R. Casadio, A. Valencia, and M. L. Tress Progress and challenges in predicting protein-protein interaction sites Brief Bioinform, May 1, 2009; 10(3): 233 - 246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. J. Bordner Predicting small ligand binding sites in proteins using backbone structure Bioinformatics, December 15, 2008; 24(24): 2865 - 2871. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. C. Chen and C. Lim Common physical basis of macromolecule-binding sites in proteins Nucleic Acids Res., December 1, 2008; 36(22): 7078 - 7087. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Ahmad, O. Keskin, A. Sarai, and R. Nussinov Protein-DNA interactions: structural, thermodynamic and clustering patterns of conserved residues in DNA-binding proteins Nucleic Acids Res., October 1, 2008; 36(18): 5922 - 5932. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H.-X. Zhou and S. Qin Interaction-site prediction for protein complexes: a critical assessment Bioinformatics, September 1, 2007; 23(17): 2203 - 2209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||


