henhaobio
Sign in

Journal of Chemical Information and ModelingBiophysicsPeer-reviewed journal article

Sampling and ranking of protein conformations using machine learning techniques do not improve quality of rigid protein-protein docking

Roman StratiichukiD, Roman KyrylenkoiD, Ihor KoleieviD, Illia SavchenkoiD, Taras VoitsitskyiiD, Vladyslav HusakiD, Semen O. YesylevskyyiD, Sergiy A. StarosylaiD, Алан НафієвiD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Rigid docking remains the most popular method of predicting protein-protein interactions in cases when experimental 3D structures of the complexes are not available. The docking often relies on known unbound (Apo) protein structures, which may differ significantly from their bound (Holo) forms. Modern machine learning (ML) based conformational sampling techniques allow generating ensembles of functionally relevant protein structures, which may be closer to their Holo forms and thus could improve the outcomes of the classical rigid protein-protein docking. Here, we sampled conformations of the protein subunits in 30 complexes from the novel PINDER dataset with two state-of-the-art ML-based techniques and evaluated their docking performance using several physics-based, data-based, and ML-based scoring functions. We showed that such conformational sampling rarely produces structures that are closer to the Holo conformations than the corresponding Apo ones. Moreover, even when such conformations are generated, none of the tested scoring functions were able to prioritize and rank them correctly. Our work highlights critical limitations in the current ML-enhanced rigid protein-protein docking workflows and emphasizes the need for new approaches that can better utilize the potential of modern techniques for conformational generation and scoring.

Citations
6
FWCI
1.79
Field percentile
top 15%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISLuo '24Marze '17Jung '23Basciu '18Voitsitskyi '26Barradas‐Ba '21
74% semantic matchBioinformatics
Ding Luo, Xiaoyang Qu, Dexin Lu+3 more·bioRxiv·Nov 22, 2024· 1 citations