bioRxivBiophysicsPreprint
A rugged binding landscape unifies static and dynamic paradigms in protein-protein interactions
Te Liu, Sichao Huang, Wenhua LiiD, Peiying WangiD, Jiahuan Song, Jiaxin Liu, Manjie ZhangiD, Bin SuniD
Abstract
Predicting protein-protein interaction (PPI) affinities from structural data remains a challenge. Although binding funnel theory describes the formation of native complexes, the topography of the funnel bottom and its influence on affinity are often overlooked. Using two well-controlled nanobody-antigen datasets as model systems, we demonstrate that PPI can exist in both static and dynamic binding paradigms. These two nanobody series adopt nearly identical binding poses toward their respective antigens yet exhibit diverse affinities, each representing a distinct paradigm: a static paradigm in which affinity can be ranked by Rosetta scoring of co-crystal structures alone, and a dynamic paradigm in which affinity can only be ranked using molecular dynamics-sampled ensembles. The two paradigms differ in interfacial dynamics. In the dynamic series, the relative motion between binding partners ({Delta}RMSF) is temperature-sensitive, with optimal affinity correlation at 298 K. In the static series, {Delta}RMSF is minimal and insensitive to temperature. Local frustration analysis establishes a mechanistic bridge between interfacial dynamics and landscape topology. Dynamic interfaces exhibit increased frustration upon thermal sampling, facilitating sampling of functionally relevant microstates, whereas static interfaces show minimal frustration changes across temperatures. The temperature-dependent frustration difference mirrors {Delta}RMSF sensitivity, confirming local frustration as a determinant of interfacial dynamics. Furthermore, static interfaces are characterized by a higher density of canonical hotspot residues, while dynamic interfaces utilize interfacial ruggedness to modulate affinity. Together, these results demonstrate that conserved binding modes can encode different energy landscapes and provide a practical framework for determining when ensemble-based sampling is required for accurate affinity prediction.
- assay: protein structure
- research focus: protein folding & dynamics
- approach: statistical model
- approach: mechanistic / dynamical model
- Citations
- 0
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.
Related papers
- Moving pictures: Reassessing docking experiments with a dynamic view of protein interfaces
C. Prevost, S. Sacquin-Mora·bioRxiv·Dec 8, 2020
- Exploring the Binding Mechanism between Human Profilin (PFN1) and Polyproline-10 through Binding Mode Screening
L. Zhang, D. R. Bell, … R. Zhou·bioRxiv·Sep 16, 2018
- Structured Random Binding: a minimal model of protein-protein interactions
Ling-Nan Zou·bioRxiv·Mar 26, 2025
- Climbing up and down binding landscapes: a high-throughput study of mutational effects in homologous protein-protein complexes
M. Heyne, J. Shirian, … J. M. Shifman·bioRxiv·Oct 14, 2020
- Predictive Models and Impact of Interfacial Contacts and Amino Acids on Protein-protein Binding Affinity
C. H. Yi, M. L. Taylor, … Y. Wang·bioRxiv·Sep 7, 2023
- Area-Based Selection of Binding Interfaces for Structural Prediction of Protein-Protein Complexes
Yong Xiao Yang, Bao Ting Zhu·bioRxiv·Oct 7, 2025