Virtual interactomics represents a rapidly developing scientific area on the boundary line of bioinformatics and interactomics. Protein-related virtual interactomics then comprises instrumental tools for prediction, simulation, and networking of the majority of interactions important for structural and individual reproduction, differentiation, recognition, signaling, regulation, and metabolic pathways of cells and organisms. Here, we describe the main areas of virtual protein interactomics, that is, structurally based comparative analysis and prediction of functionally important interacting sites, mimotope-assisted and combined epitope prediction, molecular (protein) docking studies, and investigation of protein interaction networks. Detailed information about some interesting methodological approaches and online accessible programs or databases is displayed in our tables. Considerable part of the text deals with the searches for common conserved or functionally convergent protein regions and subgraphs of conserved interaction networks, new outstanding trends and clinically interesting results. In agreement with the presented data and relationships, virtual interactomic tools improve our scientific knowledge, help us to formulate working hypotheses, and they frequently also mediate variously important in silico simulations.
1. General Remarks
Many important findings in pharmacology, cell biology, and pathobiology have been achieved with the aid of virtual interactomics including computer-aided structural analysis, prediction and in silico simulation of interacting sites, protein complexes, and interaction networks. Virtual interactomics has been developed in the last thirty years, and it is in fact based on gradual bioinformatic processing of experimental data. These data were usually obtained from individual studies of interactions, and various large-scale experimental methods such as the two-hybrid system, phage display library studies reverse interactomics, SPOT arrays or microarray studies, and extended sequence studies [1–7].
In addition to sequence data, three-dimensional (3D) structures are ever more frequently required for interactomic predictions. X-ray crystallography or nuclear magnetic resonance studies represent the most frequent sources of 3D structures, whereas combination of electron microscopy of molecular complexes with X-ray crystallography turns out to be interesting for the same purpose [8–11]. Alternatively, sophisticated 3D structure simulations such as homology modeling or combination of cryoelectron microscopy densities, and molecular dynamics appear to be also useful for approximating conventional 3D input at least in some cases [12–14]. In addition to 3D shape, solvent and surface accessibilities (or more likely actual dynamic accessibility following from accompanying interacting structures or proteolysis; cf. [15, 16]) were considered to be important criteria for reevaluation of possible interaction sites. Many experimentally investigated and predicted structural relationships were also stored in interactomic databases to be selectively found, processed and compared. Moreover, some interaction data differently stored in multiple databases have been searched with the aid of special data mining servers such as Dasmiweb and PINA v2.0 ([17, 18]; see also Table 1).
Some more recent online accessible bioinformatic tools.
Programs
Purpose
Input
Evaluation tools and procedures
Compared structures
Internet accessibility
References
Program tools
3D-BLAST (two methods)
*Identification of 23 states of the structural alphabet
PDB ACF
*SASM
*structural alphabet sequence databases
http://3d-blast.life.nctu.edu.tw/
[41, 42]
*Comparison of protein folds using spherical polar Fourier basis functions.
*Carbo-like similarity score
*SPF shape density rep.
http://threedblast.loria.fr/
DASMIweb
Online integration, analysis and assessment of distributed protein interaction data and predictions (interactomic mining)
some protein identifiers
literature curation, prediction, 3D analysis
records of interactions
http://www.dasmiweb.de
[17]
FFAS03
Server accepts a user supplied protein sequence and automatically generates a profile, which is then compared with several sets of sequence profiles of proteins databases
QS
PPA
DS
http://ffas.godziklab.org/
[36, 37]
KinasePhos 2.0
Prediction of kinase-specific phosphorylation sites based on the site sequences from databases
QS
k-fold + Jackknife cross-validations
phosphorylation sites from Phospho.ELM Swiss-Prot
http://KinasePhos2.mbc.nctu.edu.tw/
[62]
Phos3D
Method of phosphorylation-site prediction based on 3D structural information associated with 530 phys-chem-pr
QS (+3D context)
SVM, spatial amino acid propensities
PDB coordinates
http://phos3d.mpimp-golm.mpg.de/
[63]
SeSAW
Identification of functionally or evolutionarily conserved motifs based on balancing between sequence and structural similarities
*PDB QF, ID; *PDB QF, ID, IDt
P value SeSAW score
conserved domains templates
http://sysimm.ifrec.osaka-u.ac.jp/SeSAW/
[61]
Databases
ADAN
Prediction of protein-protein interactions of different modular protein domains mediated by linear motifs
PDB ACF
PSSM_PI
integrated DaSt
http://adan-embl.ibmc.umh.es/
[64]
CDD (RPS BLAST)
Conserved domain relationships, domain location of frequent binding sites
Database for secondary structure-based protein topologies; visualization of topology diagrams and 3D structures
PDB QF
ULN4D_graph theory
DS + DaSt
http://ptgl.uni-frankfurt.de/
[70]
RsiteDB
Database of protein binding pockets which interact with single strand RNA
PDB code, UPS
3D arrangement of phys-chem-pr
3D-CBP
http://bioinfo3d.cs.tau.ac.il/RsiteDB/
[71]
*Independent alternatives; 3D-CBP: 3D consensus binding patterns important for protein-nucleotide recognition; DS: database sequences; DSA: double sequence alignment; DaSt: database structures; CS: list of compared sequences; ID, IDt: chain or template ID, respectively; MSA: multiple sequence alignment; QS: query sequence(s) (instead of QS, clonal names or gi numbers can be used in majority of given approaches); phys-chem-pr: physicochemical properties; PDB: Protein data bank; PDB QF: PDB-formatted query file; PDB ACF: PDB-derived atom coordinate file; PPA: profile-profile alignment; PSSM: position-specific scoring matrices; PSSM_PI: PSSM for protein-protein interactions calculated by FoldX; rep.: representations; SASM: structural alphabet substitution matrix; SPF: spherical polar Fourier; SVM: support vector machines; ULN4D_graph theory: unique linear notations of four descriptions for protein structures on different abstraction levels based on graph theory; UPS: unbound protein structure.
Virtual interactomic studies are mostly realized via computer programs including numerous online accessible tools. Three types of computer data processing are important for online interactomic predictions on molecular level, that is, (i) structure comparisons, (ii) molecular docking studies, and (iii) reevaluation of current database data, and accessible or proposed protein interaction networks. Similarly, three types of interacting structures can be distinguished with respect to their different molecular origin. This concerns (i) conserved structures, (ii) randomly/quasi-randomly in vitro generated or rapidly evolved structures (e.g., mimotopes and disordered regions), and (iii) binding sites of antigen receptors expressed in specific immune cell clones, which are usually developed during the regular recombination process, and later also at the time of immune response.
In contrast to reactomics, interactomics described here deals exclusively with interactions, and thus concerns only interactions of enzyme active sites but not their subsequent reaction mechanism. Consequently, modeling of enzyme reactions exceeds the topic of this review. In addition, since we dealt here with protein interactomics, this paper also does not contain information about interactions of DNA with nonpeptide ligands.
2. Structural Similarities of Interacting Sites
By using various structurally based programs, many protein interactions can be predicted based on the occurrence of phylogenetically conserved or convergently developed functionally important common structural features (motifs, sequence patterns, consensi, constructs of conserved domain sequences, supersecondary structures, supersecondary motifs, 3D-arranged structural patterns and pockets). However, diversification within protein families, and superfamilies causes losses of interacting structures or disables their accessibility. On the other hand, new interactive pairs frequently appear in cases of disordered protein regions, that is, peptide segments naturally occurring in multiple conformation variants [19–21]. The attendant stability problems, as well as some additional problems with molecular analysis, were diminished by the development of databases enabling reevaluation of selected structural relationships. The databases inform us about similar or common structural features, frequent locations of binding sites in related domains, solvent accessibility, and location of investigated segments in 3D structures of proteins (see Table 1).
During the last twenty years, conventional sequence-based search for conserved structures frequently combined different evaluations of sequence similarities. The corresponding protocols usually combined double sequence, and multiple sequence comparisons like BLASTP, PSI-BLAST, RPS-BLAST, Clustal W and MUSCLE [22, 23]. In addition, highly selective PHI-BLAST or PSI-BLAST searches with specifically restricted representative query sequences such as consensi (and also sequence patterns) made it possible to locate the corresponding potentially interacting sites in extended sequence sets [23–26]. Except for current conserved sequences, extremely variable but still defined structures such as heptad repeats were investigated for purposes of molecular topology [27, 28]. These repeats can be written as an alphabet with generalized characters representing aa groups instead of individual aa (hydrophobic, charged, polar, etc.). Together with usual (motif-related sequence block derived) patterns an important part of heptad repeats can be searched in database sequences and partially reevaluated by means of PROSITE programs [29–32]. Apart from regions with highly conserved sequences, additional conserved structures were found when combining evaluation of primary and secondary structures [33], PSI-BLAST and secondary structure [34], or when using fold recognition [34, 35]. The compared sequence queries were moreover evaluated on the sophisticated widely used FFAS03 server (about 250 references) providing the third generation of the profile-profile alignment and fold-recognition algorithm mediated by program FFAS (fold, and function assignment system; [36, 37]; Table 1). The sensitivity FFAS-related profile-profile comparison is now widely recognized and many Web servers implementing such algorithms are available, for example, HHPRED, COMPASS, COMA, PHYRE, GenThreader, FORTE and webPRC [37]. More recent multiple sequence alignment program BCL::Align includes also combined evaluation of structural similarities [38] (for applications, see, e.g., [39, 40]). The corresponding scoring function is a weighted sum of scores derived based on (i) the traditional PAM, and BLOSUM scoring matrices, (ii) position-specific scoring matrices by PSI-BLAST, (iii) secondary structure predicted by a variety of methods, (iv) chemical properties, and (v) gap penalties. Monte Carlo algorithm was then used to determine necessary optimized weights in cases of sequence alignment and fold recognition.
Input of 3D coordinates or their transformed representations was necessary for other structural studies predicting also functional interaction sites. The corresponding research yielded two servers with different 3D-BLAST programs enabling us to compare folds and fold families [41, 42] (for details see also Table 1). Alternative structural comparison substituting 3D relationships was performed when searching for the maximum contact map overlaps [43]. The extended contact map comparison appeared very early [44]. Contact map is in fact determined by the matrix of distances between individual amino acids, contact threshold and specification of contact types [45, 46]. This map can be visualized by CMView software [46]. Similarly to sequence motifs, conserved patterns of 3D peptide arrangements (CP-3D-A) were considered as an additional type of structure-function motifs. These structures were recorded by sequence independent 3D-templates and can be searched on Evolutionary Trace Annotation server [47, 48]. Frequent functionally important CP-3D-A occurred, for instance, in active sites of proteins containing porphyrin rings including members of cytochrome P450 superfamily [49]. Another recent interesting approach consisted in generalized motif search in large alphabet (cumulative occurrence of several alphabets in this case) inputs including simultaneously evaluation of DNA sequence, protein sequence and supersecondary structure motifs [50]. According to the authors, large alphabets are important in cases when structures share little similarity at primary level.
Similarly to multiple sequence alignment, various forms of multiple structural alignments (MSTA) have been generated. Older attempts at MSTA were based on secondary structural alignment [51–53]. On the other hand, recent MSTA approaches determined common spatial (3D) structures. These approaches include new strategies employing “molecular sieving” of protein structures, minimization of an energy function over the low-dimensional space of the relative rotations, and translations of the molecules, geometric hashing and contact-window-derived motif library [54–58].
In spite of the increasing possibility of database reevaluation, some structurally based programs predicting interacting sites became at least relatively autonomous. A large number of specific and relatively autonomous programs concerned the prediction of epitopes (for details see Section 3). Similarly, various possibilities of prediction of phosphorylation sites were frequently investigated (two examples in Table 1), since phosphorylation reactions represent an important signaling and regulatory network in cell biology and pathobiology. The interest followed also from the extended building of databases related to phosphorylation sites, which brought many interesting insights. For instance, in accordance with the linear motif atlas for phosphorylation-dependent signaling, tyrosine kinases mutated in cancer exhibited lower specificity than their non-oncogenic relatives [59]. Similarly, collection and motif-based prediction of phosphorylation sites in human virus proteins suggested a substantial role for human kinases in regulation/mediation of viral protein functions [60]. In contrast to programs predicting specific types of interacting sites, SeSAW represents an example of general online accessible program allowing prediction of possible functionally important structures [61] (see also Table 1). The corresponding balance between different combined structural evaluations concerned, among others, data present in position specific scoring matrix (PSSM), template-derived PSSM and template functional annotations.
3. Mimotope and Epitope Interactions
Epitopes are defined as the structures responsible for interaction of antigens with binding sites of antigen receptors. On the other hand, mimotopes belong to artificially prepared peptides, which interact with natural templates (most likely proteins), and thus mimic other peptides or organic compounds in their functionally important interactions. Mimotope development is based on synthetic peptide or phage display libraries, whereas natural development of specific cell clones is necessary for epitope recognition by specific antigen receptors. This means that both epitopes and mimotopes can sometimes considerably differ from the usual conserved structures mentioned above. In spite of the described difference, a unifying point between mimotopes and epitopes exists, because mimotopes were originally defined as peptides mimicking epitopes [72], forming thus only a subset of the later current mimotope repertoire. In addition to this historical linkage, rapidly developing (diverging) structures such as molecular mimicry enabling parasitic attack and adaptation of pathogenic viruses and bacteria, disordered regions of proteins, and protein loops appear to be good candidates for extended investigation of mimotope similarities (cf. [21, 73–75]) and mimotope based prediction (see below).
Mimotopes were originally derived in studies with a phage display library. This phage technology was discovered in the eighties [76]. The corresponding boom in the nineties then comprised novel random, partially randomized or gene-fragment-derived oligopeptide libraries able to functionally mimic epitopes, autoepitopes, short peptide ligands, protein kinase or proteinase substrates, as well as peptides mimicking organic substances such as biotin when interacting with steptavidin [77–85]. Mimotope similarities were frequently defined using sequence patterns, whereas additional types of nonsequence structural similarities were also described (see, e.g., [81, 83]). More recent biotechnological research of mimotopes yielded potential peptide drugs [86–89], peptide vaccines [90–92], and peptides suitable for specific (mostly nanoparticle mediated) drug delivery to tumor cells, brain, atherosclerotic plaques, and other therapeutically important sites of human or animal organisms [93–97]. In spite of this considerable progress, virtual interactomic tools are not still able to compare or predict organic drugs based on their effective spatial similarity with functionally active mimotopes.
Database registration and authentication of mimotopes have been performed for more than ten years [98–100]. Special programs comparing primary structures of epitopes were simultaneously developed (programs FINDMAP, and EPIMAP [101, 102]). Some of them employed also multiple-sequence alignment evaluation (program MIMOP [103]). Similarly, coexisting peptide databases were established to process the accumulated information. These databases (i) recognized sequence subsets classified after in vitro evolution of phage display libraries, (ii) offered many integrating programs, and (iii) made it possible to find all mimotope sets that have the 3D structure of a target-template complex (databases ASPD, RELIC and MimoDB [98, 99, 104, 105]). In addition, novel mimotope-assisted computer-aided epitope prediction was discovered. This prediction came from both the 3D structure of an interacting partner and sequences of similarly interacting mimotopes, and has also concerned some interacting partners different from specific antigen receptors and antigens (programs PepSurf, Pep-3D-Search, and MimoPro [106–108]). Based on this approach, improved specificity, and extended the repertoire of predicted epitopes or other interacting partners were achieved. Further progress in programming then resulted in accelerated computation in spite of more complicated, and precise strategies of data processing. In addition, pattern recognition algorithm was developed, which can effectively be employed to screen a mixture of antibodies, and define the breadth of epitopes recognized by polyserum directed against specific proteins [109]. This possibility appears to be interesting with respect to future vaccine design.
The recent status of epitope prediction is still far from resolved due to insufficient extent of the datasets, and still requires continuous improvement of database organization [110, 111]. In such state, mimotope-assisted epitope prediction mentioned above and combined approaches represent a certain improvement in the quality of epitope prediction. Online accessible combined approaches of B-cell epitope prediction mostly evaluate 3D structures together with solvent accessibility (programs CEP, ElliPro, PEPOP and 3D alternative of Epitopia [112–115]; Table 2). Similarly to many other combined approaches, combined restriction diminishes the number of false positivities but simultaneously can cause increased number of false negativities. For instance, the widely used requirement of solvent accessibility mentioned above would in fact eliminate at least part of conserved autoepitopes, which contain hydrophobic patterns (cf. [116–118]). To diminish losses following from employed combinations or effects of too strict (sure) thresholds, a metaserver was developed that sums up the results from six epitope-predicting servers [119]. In addition, some new types of online accessible prediction of linear epitopes appeared to complete the preceding results [120, 121].
Epitope prediction or reevaluation on accessible servers.
Programs
Purpose
Tools or procedures of evaluation
Input
Output
Internet accessibility
References
Epitope prediction
MimoDB 2.0
Mimotope database
MySQL relational database
according to menu
Structures visualization, alignments, and so forth
http://immunet.cn/mimodb/
[105]
MimoPro
Maps a group of mimotopes back to a source antigen so as to locate the interacting epitope on the antigen
Branch and bound optimization (analysis of overlapping patches on the surface of a protein)
PDB identifier mimotope sequences
Score + 3D location in antigen
http://informatics.nenu.edu.cn/MimoPro/
[108]
ViPR
Virus pathogen database
Integration of various resources
according to menu
Structures, annotations, and so forth
http://www.viprbrc.org/
[140]
MetaMHC
Prediction of MHC binding epitopes
meta-approach
QS
Four metapredictor scores including MetaSVMp score
*Independent alternatives; Ag: antigen; BFE: Bayes Feature Extraction; flx: flexibility; ES: epitope sequences; HLA: human leukocyte antigens (human MHC); ISC-PLS: iterative self-consistent partial-least-squares based additive method; MHC: alleles of major histocompatibility antigens; MLA: machine learning algorithm; MSA: multiple sequence alignment; PDB: protein data bank; PDB ACF: PDB-derived atom coordinate file; QS: query sequence(s); SA: solvent accessibility; SVM: support vector machines.
An interesting input simplification has been achieved with a novel web server CBTOBE. This server uses learning of support vector machines based on physicochemical profiles, and makes it possible to predict conformation epitopes based on a sole sequence input [122]. A recent private alternative of CBTOBE was based on older evaluation of secondary structure and solvent accessibility (server COBEpro [123]) further complemented by evolutionary information and machine-learning-derived evaluation [124].
Combined predictions of epitopes presented to T-cell receptors have integrated class I MHC (major histocompatibility complex) peptide binding affinity, TAP transport efficiency and prediction of proteasome cleavage (programs EpiJen, NetCTL-1.2, FRED [125–128]). Nevertheless, independent simulations of peptide-binding affinity of various MHC molecules have been also proposed [129] as well as the corresponding neural network-based learning [130]. Both combined, and sole approaches then represent starting steps for further reevaluation with respect to T-cell receptor interactions, for example, using learning of support vector machines, and strict kernels based on 531 physicochemical properties (POPISK [131]). Important information about existing T-cell, and B-cell epitopes can be also obtained from the Immune Epitope Database (IEDB [132, 133]). Among others, EpitopeViewer of the 3D structural subcomponent of IEDB (IEDB-3D) allows the user to visualize, render and analyze the structure, and save structural and contact views as high-quality pictures for publication [133].
Since production of various vaccines, and detection kits with mononoclonal antibodies requires high efficiency of preparations, special searches for conserved epitopes have been developed for this purpose. Though the meaning of crucial term “conserved epitope” exceeds primary structure relationships, the repertoires of the corresponding structures appear to be sometimes considerably limited. In fact, structural or regulatory adaptations of pathogenic microogranisms and viruses cause less stability of immunologically important, and promising promiscuous (cytotoxic or helper) T-cell epitopes broadly cross-reacting with different MHC antigens, different frequencies of T-cell epitopes specific usually only for certain unique MHC molecule, as well as losses of immunogenicity or even absence of immune response. In addition to current evaluation, drug effects (cf. effects in docking studies described below) and accompanying structural variability (e.g., enzyme polymorphisms or special pathogenetical effects) have to be considered with respect to possible peptide epitope modifications, possible bias, or improvement of therapeutical design. It is a question whether conserved spatial structures following from multiple structural alignments mentioned above can be also interesting for prediction of conserved conformation of B-cell epitopes. The second part of Table 2 contains some web servers interesting with respect to prediction of conserved epitopes, whereas selected examples related to AIDS research follow.
The first more complex prediction of HIV epitopes was based on sequence conservativeness, secondary structure, solvent accessibility, hydrophilicity and flexibility [134]. The study pointed to an unfavorably frequent occurrence of changes in secondary structures predicted as antigenic. Certain progress in the research of conserved HIV-1 epitopes was achieved when assessing their possible interactions with MHC antigens. This comprised peptide prediction based on EpiMatrix score [135], construction of the peptide property model from a training dataset [136, 137] and combined T-cell epitope evaluation mentioned above [126, 127]. Lately, phylogenetic hidden Markov models allowed to predict HIV-1-related T-cell epitopes based on contiguous aa positions that evolve under immune pressure dependent among others on host HLA alleles [138]. In a recent paper, structure-function analysis based on a specifically devised mathematical model revealed that protection from neutralization (shielding of neutralization-sensitive domains) is enforced by intersubunit contact between the variable loops 1 and 2 (gp120 V1V2) of HIV-1, and domains of neighboring gp120 subunits in the trimer encompassing the V3 loop [139].
4. Protein Docking
Molecular docking is a method, which predicts the preferred reciprocal orientation of two molecules when they bound to each other to form a stable complex [147]. In case of simulated protein interactions, the authors currently speak about protein docking rather than about molecular docking, since molecular docking represents a term comprising also nucleic acid interactions with nonpeptide molecules. Formerly, molecular docking simulated “lock-and-key” type of protein interactions. Its original variants appeared in the eighties and reassumed interpretations of older molecular graphics [148–152]. These approaches were restricted by complementarity demands or simplified requirements for energy minimization. Lately, “hand-in-glove” analogy was found to be more appropriate for molecular docking than the “lock-and-key” one [153]. In addition to this conventional model, three new models have been recently developed for docking studies of protein-protein interactions [154], that is, (i) conformer selection model, using a novel ensemble docking algorithm, (ii) induced fit model, employing energy-gradient-based backbone minimization, and (iii) combined conformer selection/induced fit model. Physics-based molecular mechanics allowed the development of the force fields, which enabled the assessment of relative binding strength [155]. Alternative knowledge-based approaches were evolved to derive a statistical potential for interactions from a large database of protein-ligand complexes [156]. Affinity evaluation, statistical methods and combined procedures represent frequent alternatives of evaluation in recent protein docking approaches (Table 3). In addition to usual full 3D models simulating molecular complexes, contact docking was also proposed. This docking is based on contact map representations of molecules (cf. chapter 3). According to the authors contact docking appears feasible, and is able to complement other computational methods for the prediction of protein-protein interactions [157].
ACD: available chemicals directory (database); CAPRI: critical assessment of predicted interactions; CLEP: combined lowest energy prediction; CS: combined scoring; DS-QM: docking score-based quantitative matrices; EQS score: score combining grid energy, electrostatic and entropy terms; FMO: fragment molecular orbitals; HLA-DP: a subset of human MHC II; ΔGbind: free energy of binding; PK: protein kinases; MM-GB/SA molecular mechanics scoring function with generalized Born implicit solvent effects; P-gp: P-glycoprotein; RMSD: root mean square displacement statistics; TCR: T-cell receptor.
The number of molecules whose interactions can be scanned by current protein docking depends usually on the complexity of evaluated interactions and manner of simulation. For instance, interaction of 142 drugs inhibiting Poly-(ADP-ribose)-polymerase was tested in a large-scale virtual docking screening together with 300 000 added organic compounds with the aid of the program Lead Finder [158], whereas only 176 protein-protein interactions were analyzed by efficient program ZDOCK during extended simulation [159]. In addition to current output, some docking studies even verified the results of simulation using in silico experiments. For instance, aa involvement in enzyme interactions was proved with simulated mutation (program SYBYL 6.7 and Internal Coordinate Mechanics method [160, 161]) whereas other authors compared separate simulated effects of inhibitors and substrates (program BioDock [162]).
In addition to current molecular docking simulations (Table 3), certain docking studies analyzed modulation effects of additional molecules on the evaluated interaction [163–165]. Homology modeling followed by extensive molecular dynamics simulation was used to identify nonpeptidic small organic compounds (among 150 000 compounds) that bind to a human leukocyte antigen HLA-DR1301, and block the presentation of myelin basic protein peptide (aa positions 152–165) to T-cells. This peptide represents one of the epitopes critical for multiple sclerosis. In silico selection resulted in a set of 106 small molecules, two lead compounds were confirmed to specifically block IL-2 secretion by DR1301-restricted T-cells in a dose-dependent and reversible manner [163].
Pockets opening to protein surface represents potential sites for ligand binding or protein-protein interactions that were indeed identified in some cases [166–168]. Consequently, an algorithm BDOCK facilitating pocket-based prediction of protein binding site was proposed to improve protein docking [169], and moreover new algorithms predicting pockets are still proposed [170]. Many pockets were only transiently present on simulated surfaces of investigated proteins (e.g., Bcl-xl, interleukin 2, MDM2), and were all opened only 2.5 picosecond when using model intervals corresponding to ten nanosecond range [171].
Some docking studies comprised phylogenic aspects of protein interactions. It was observed that except for antibody-antigen complexes [172], the surface density of conserved residue positions at the interface regions of interacting protein surfaces is high. The corresponding combination of the residue conservation information with a widely used shape complementarity algorithm improved the ability of protein docking to predict the native structure of protein-protein complexes. Efficient comparative docking consists in selection based on conservation in terms of chain positions and primary structure in the first step, and the following high-throughput structure-based docking evaluation [173] (see also Table 3). Recent combined strategy including multiple sequence alignment and fold recognition analysis has been proposed to perform more precise docking, and predict also protein function [174].
Bioinspired algorithms were also applied to molecular docking simulations including neural networks, evolutionary computing and swarm intelligence [175]. Though neural networks participated in some older evaluations working in conventional programs of molecular docking [176–179], their independent scoring functions for docking have appeared lately [180, 181]. An extreme neural network approach required only sequence input to perform a docking-like procedure [182]. Predictions followed from a trained model that simulated binding or nonbinding stages.
5. Protein Interaction Networks
Protein interaction networks (PINs) are usually represented by graphs. Nodes of these graphs denote interacting molecules, whereas each edge linking two nodes indicates the corresponding interaction. The prevailing part of PIN is usually constituted by protein-protein interaction network (P-PIN). In addition to P-PIN, we can observe a record of protein interactions with (i) nonpeptidic hormones or mediators and drugs, (ii) processed, targeted, and functional complexes forming RNA, and (iii) recombining, hypermutating, repairing, replicating, twisting/untwisting, and transcribed DNA. These nonpeptidic compounds represent in fact inputs, outputs, interaction-stabilizing agents, or relay batons of P-PIN. In cases of DNA, and RNA, some papers appeared dealing with special protein-RNA, and protein-DNA interaction networks [205–208]. Protein-DNA networks moreover combined both the protein-centric and the DNA-centric points of view [205].
Like in other related networks, clusters are recognized in P-PIN. Two main types of P-PIN-related clusters can be distinguished, that is, protein complexes and functional modules [209, 210]. Protein complexes are groups of proteins that interact with each other at the same time and place, forming a single multimolecular machine (e.g., metabolic multienzyme complexes). Functional modules consist of proteins that participate in a particular cellular process while binding to each other at a different time and place (e.g., multiple signaling cascades are functional modules sometimes including also protein complexes). An important type of functional modules, that is, responsive functional modules (RFMs), includes protein interactions activated under specific conditions. These RFMs appear to be interesting with respect to prediction of potential biomarkers [211].
Much attention has been paid to the identification of small conserved subgraphs, particularly those occurring significantly often within the biological networks. These conserved subgraphs were referred to as network motifs or simply as motifs (similarly to primary structure motifs), and were considered as basic building blocks of complex networks including P-PIN [212, 213]. Ancestral pathways or functional modules including conserved interactions were derived when comparing P-PIN of phylogenetically distant species such as human, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans, and various bacterial species [214, 215]. Proteins necessary for proteasome function, transcription, RNA processing and translation were frequent in conserved subgraphs of compared Eukaryota, whereas DNA repair proteins prevailed in conserved prokaryotic subgraphs. Incorporation of literature-curated and evolutionarily conserved interactions also allowed to develop an interaction network for 54 proteins providing a tool for understanding Purkinje cell degeneration [216]. This result made it possible to find experimentally 770 mostly novel protein-protein interactions using a stringent yeast two-hybrid screen.
Recent integrative approaches combined at least transcriptional data with P-PIN analyses, and at most five layers including phenotype association with single-nucleotide polymorphism, disease-tissue, drug-tissue and drug-gene relationships, in addition to the topical P-PIN record [217] (see also Table 4). Two-layer comparison of disease-related mRNA expression, and human P-PIN was for instance used together with hierarchical clustering of networks to elucidate human disease similarities. The results led to a hypothesis considering common usage of some drugs in the diseases, which exhibited close relationship with respect to given clustering [218]. More extended analysis of gene expression overlays with protein-protein interaction, transcriptional-regulatory and signaling networks identified distinct driver-networks for each of the three common clinical breast cancer subtypes, that is, oestrogen receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive and triple receptor-negative breast cancers [219]. Integrative online accessible tools reevaluating P-PIN relationships were developed to predict candidate genes critical for the occurrence of different diseases (cf. network-based disease gene prioritization; [220, 221]).
Online accessible tools for PPI network assembly, reevaluation, and comparison.
Purpose
Input
Evaluation results
Network content
Internet accessibility
References
Program tools
PINTA
Resource for the prioritization of disease related candidate genes based on the differential expression of their neighborhood in a genome-wide protein-protein interaction network.
Files with disease-specific expression data
Internal scores, P values, Bonferroni–Holm P-values
menu: human, mouse, rat, worm(C. elegans) and yeast P-PIN
http://www.esat.kuleuven.be/pinta/
[221]
PCFamily
Finds homologous structure complexes of the query using BLASTP to search the structural template database
QS or QS set in FASTA format
Z-value agreement ratio
941 protein complexes
http://pcfamily.life.nctu.edu.tw
[236]
BisoGenet
Build and visualize biological networks in a fast and user-friendly manner including P-PIN
List of identifiers
Node degrees, cluster coefficients
5365 human genes
http://bio.cigb.edu.cu/bisogenet-cytoscape/
[245]
DynaMod
Identifies significant functional modules reflecting the change of modularity and differential expressions that are correlated with gene expression profiles under different conditions
Genome-wide expression profile
Z-score, Bonferroni or FDR P-values
In frame of GSEA
http://biocondor6.kaist.ac.kr/dynamod/
[241]
TORQUE
Cross species querying allows users to run topology-free queries on predefined or user-provided target networks resulting in subnetwork of the target network most similar to query subset
Seq of compared sets, query list, target P-PIN
Thickness of the edge
5430 proteins, 39 936 interactions
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~bnet/torque.html
[246]
NetworkBLAST
Identifies protein complexes within and across species, forming html page with links to schemes of interactions within complexes and additional graph data files
Files with *PPI, BLPE *PPI
likelihood based density score
species related P-PIN*two species*single species
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~roded/networkblast.htm
[234]
Databases
STRING
A database of functional interaction networks of proteins, globally integrated and scored
Search based on gene annotations
probabilistic confidence score
>1100 completely sequenced organisms
http://string-db.org
[251]
ChemProt
Disease chemical biology database including 7×105 chemicals and two millions chemical-protein interactions; indicates a possible formation of disease-associated protein complexes
Compound and protein identifiers
compilation of multiple chemical-protein annotations
30 578 proteins2227 disease-related proteins, 428 429 PPI
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/ChemProt/
[252]
NetAge
Database and network analysis tools for biogerontological research (integrity and functionality of P-PIN is under a tight epigenetic control)
Tools for searching and browsing
experimental evidence about interactions
miRNA-regulated P-PIN in age-related diseases
http://www.netage-project.org
[253]
BioGRID
All interactions in BioGRID are available through the Osprey visualization system, which can be used to query network organization in a user-defined fashion
Intuitive graphical interface
experimental evidence about interactions
Over 198 000 genetic + protein interactions from six species
http://www.thebiogrid.org
[254]
EHCO
Encyclopedia of Hepatocellular Carcinoma genes Online collect, organize and compare unsorted HCC-related studies
CMS
NL processing and softbots
97 proteins, 47 highly interactive, 18 hubs
http://ehco.iis.sinica.edu.tw
[255]
IntNetDB v1.0
A database providing automatic prediction and visualization of PPI network among genes of interest; analysis includes domain-domain interactions, known gene contexts, crossvalidation, and so forth
list of query gene identifiers
likelihood ratio following from Bayesian analysis
concerns 27 species contains GSP and GSN from HPRD
http://hanlab.genetics.ac.cn/IntNetDB.htm
[256]
*Independent alternatives; BLPE: BLASTP E values between pairs of proteins from each of the compared species; CMS: content management system; GSEA: gene set enrichment analyses; GSP, GSN: gold standard positive and a gold standard negative dataset of HPRD, respectively; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; HPRD: human protein reference database; NL: natural language; PE: probabilistic evaluation; PPI: protein-protein interactions; QS: query sequences; seq: sequences.
The majority of proteins reciprocally interact via one or two interactions. This number substantially increases to tens, hundreds and more, when considering multi-interactive proteins denoted in PIN as hubs [222]. In agreement with the sense of the term, hubs are the principal agents in the interaction network and affect its function and stability [223]. Hubs were enriched in kinase and adaptor proteins including those interacting with frequently disordered phosphorylated protein regions [224, 225]. Similarly, many pathogenetically important proteins belonged to hubs, for example, the widely known tumor suppressor p53, alpha-synuclein involved in Parkinson disease and small multifunctional core protein necessary for orchestration of viral progeny in Flaviviridae [226, 227]. In principle, two types of hubs were distinguished, that is, static “party hubs” and dynamic “date hubs.” Party hubs are markedly more phylogenetically conserved, and their expression is highly correlated with their interacting partners in contrast to less conserved date hubs more frequently containing disordered regions and participating in cell signaling [228–230]. Hubs with two or more domains are more likely to connect distinct functional modules than single-domain hubs [224]. In addition to studies of biochemically interesting hubs, docking procedures (mediated by program ClusPro [231]) were recently employed together with comparative modeling to construct P-PIN [232], whereas domain-domain, domain-motif and motif-motif interactions were distinguished in some other P-PIN [233].
Extended P-PIN research yielded many tools allowing P-PIN-based prediction of protein complex formation [234–237], identification of hubs and multifunctional proteins [238, 239], identification of functional modules [240–242], network-based disease gene prioritization [217, 221, 243], as well as network building [244, 245], cross-species querying [246] or comparison [234, 237]. Some of these approaches as well as several examples of P-PIN-related databases are described in Table 4. The instrumental progress in PIN research also led to an increased number of the corresponding methodological reviews, for example, [247–250].
6. Accuracy as an Important Parameter
A detailed evaluation of accuracy of all the above approaches would require a separate review. The obstacles consist first of all in presence of complementary information in articles inaccessible for biologists and on web pages. Such state complicates mining of accuracy data first of all in the case, when server-related papers represent only the final step of author’s efforts. Accuracy evaluation or even the corresponding references are also rarely present in the papers concerning new online databases. In addition, some authors also use other criterions related to accuracy to evaluate the corresponding performance value, whereas only some of such evaluations are widely known as valid accuracy substitution, for example, AUC (area under the ROC curve) discussed below.
In spite of the obstacles, we can mention several examples of high accuracy concerning the above approaches. Excellent accuracy values higher then 0.90 were found in the cases of Conserved Domain Database (or its RPS BLAST server; [257]; Table 1) and older 3D-BLAST variant under a broad range of conditions (Table 1), whereas similarly interesting AUC values (higher than 0.90) were mostly found also in the cases of recent 3D BLAST variant (Table 1), and the selected strategy of SVM- and machine-learning-based epitope prediction known as CBTOBE (chapter 3; [122]). The same accuracy levels were rarely achieved in certain subsets when employing ADAN, KinasePhos 2.0 (Table 1), ElliPro, RANKPEP (Table 2), SVM and machine-learning-based epitope prediction improved by evolutionary information BEOracle (chapter 3; [124]) and docking tool HADDOCK (chapter 4; [178]). Similarly, restricted subset-related AUC values of 0.90 and 0.93 indicated a good predicting ability when using docking-like Partner-aware prediction (chapter 4; [182]), and combined evaluation based on Glide X and molecular mechanics (Table 3) to simulate interactions of 25 antibodies and P-glycoprotein, respectively. Frequent subset accuracies of higher values than the gold standard value of 0.80 were observed during runs of programs Phos3D, KinasePhos 2.0 (Table 1), ElliPro (Table 2) and CBTOBE mentioned above (chapter 3; [122]), and two docking tools Glide XP and Gold (Table 2; [258]). Comparable AUC values then concerned RANKPEP (Table 2), BEOracle mentioned above (chapter 3; [124]) and network-based disease gene prioritization called DADA (chapter 5; [236]). The low occurrence of P-PIN in our overview of accuracy evaluation followed from the fact that the performance of P-PIN was alternatively evaluated with the aid of precision or recall. An interesting approach—Lead Finder—was developed to improve the accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation and virtual screening. High enrichment factors were obtained for almost all of the targets and seven different docking programs resulting in an excellent average AUC value of 0.92 [258].
7. Tendencies, Improvements, and Interplays
In summary, virtual interactomics represents a highly sophisticated, and relatively autonomous subarea of both interactomics and bioinformatics. Its development can be characterized by several independent and integrative tendencies. The independent tendencies include (i) more rapid and precise molecular modeling of protein complexes (including quantum mechanic methods and rapid pharmacological screening based on docking), (ii) more complex evaluation of structural similarities (e.g., large alphabets and combined prediction of functional sites), (iii) extensive assembly of large-scale PIN and assembly of PIN or PIN subgraphs with dynamical properties, and (iv) restriction of conserved PIN subgraphs and clinically interesting responsive functional modules. The integrative tendencies then comprise (i) establishment of structurally functionally, and purposefully oriented databases and associated data mining servers, (ii) questions concerning phylogenic relationships between structural differences in PIN subgraphs, and the differences in protein structures of subgraph forming molecules, (iii) PIN prediction and revision/reevaluation of empirically proposed PIN using comparative molecular modeling, docking and bio-inspired algorithms, (iv) comparative differential multilayer network approaches including clinical treatment cases, and (v) attempts to construct global networks within a single cell, and hopefully, within the system of different reciprocally communicating cell types (e.g., immune system). Since interactomics simplifies reactomic simulations, it can also markedly and rapidly complete reactomic results, for example, in prediction of enzyme-inhibitor effects and specificity of protein kinase interactions mentioned above. In the end, we also dealt here with accuracy, which represents an important parameter of tool choice together with reasonable tool accessibility, and possibilities to test several alternatives before prediction, simulation and network analysis or to use two or several independent methods. In conclusion, many interesting and important interplays occur inside the virtual interactomic area as well as in its boundary lines and performance evaluation.
Abbreviations3D:
Three-dimensional
aa:
Amino acid residues in protein sequence
PIN:
Protein interaction network(s)
P-PIN:
Protein-protein interaction network(s).
EspejoA.CôtéJ.BednarekA.RichardS.BedfordM. T.A protein-domain microarray identifies novel protein-protein interactions200236736977022-s2.0-003684603410.1042/BJ20020860LoS. H.Reverse interactomics: from peptides to proteins and to functions20072293952-s2.0-3394753579810.1021/cb700013qSuterB.KittanakomS.StagljarI.Two-hybrid technologies in proteomics research20081943163232-s2.0-4954908413810.1016/j.copbio.2008.06.005BriantD. J.MurphyJ. M.LeungG. C.SicheriF.Rapid identification of linear protein domain binding motifs using peptide SPOT arrays20095701751852-s2.0-73949087554HuiS.BaderG. D.Proteome scanning to predict PDZ domain interactions using support vector machines201011, article 5072-s2.0-7795773701410.1186/1471-2105-11-507DaemenA.SignorettoM.GevaertO.SuykensJ. A. K.De MoorB.Improved microarray-based decision support with graph encoded interactome data2010542-s2.0-7795631840010.1371/journal.pone.0010225e10225HuangJ.RuB.DaiP.Bioinformatics resources and tools for phage display20111616947092-s2.0-7925149973510.3390/molecules16010694van DijkA. D. J.KapteinR.BoelensR.BonvinA. M. J. J.Combining NMR relaxation with chemical shift perturbation data to drive protein-protein docking20063442372442-s2.0-3364614896510.1007/s10858-006-0024-8KlingeS.Ñez-RamírezR.LlorcaO.PellegriniL.3D architecture of DNA Pol α reveals the functional core of multi-subunit replicative polymerases20092813197819872-s2.0-6765040970210.1038/emboj.2009.150StarkJ. L.PowersR.Application of NMR and molecular docking in structure-based drug discovery201232613410.1007/128_2011_213, 34OrtsJ.BartoschekS.GriesingerC.MoneckeP.CarlomagnoT.An NMR-based scoring function improves the accuracy of binding pose predictions by docking by two orders of magnitude20125212330DillerD. J.LiR.Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking20034622463846472-s2.0-014202893710.1021/jm020503aFörsterF.VillaE.Integration of cryo-EM with atomic and protein-protein interaction data201048347722-s2.0-7795726097310.1016/S0076-6879(10)83003-4CavasottoC. N.Homology models in docking and high-throughput docking20111112152815342-s2.0-7996000915710.2174/156802611795860951TsfadiaY.FriedmanR.KadmonJ.SelzerA.NachlielE.GutmanM.Molecular dynamics simulations of palmitate entry into the hydrophobic pocket of the fatty acid binding protein20075816124312472-s2.0-3384776034510.1016/j.febslet.2007.02.033GochinM.ZhouG.PhillipsA. H.Paramagnetic relaxation assisted docking of a small indole compound in the HIV-1 gp41 hydrophobic pocket2011632672742-s2.0-7995563949210.1021/cb100368dBlankenburgH.RamírezF.BüchJ.AlbrechtM.DASMIweb: online integration, analysis and assessment of distributed protein interaction data2009372W122W1282-s2.0-6784911001410.1093/nar/gkp438CowleyM. J.PineseM.KassahnK. S.PINA v2.0: mining interactome modules201140D862D865SickmeierM.HamiltonJ. A.LeGallT.VacicV.CorteseM. S.TantosA.SzaboB.TompaP.ChenJ.UverskyV. N.ObradovicZ.DunkerA. K.DisProt: the database of disordered proteins2007351D786D7932-s2.0-3384609986810.1093/nar/gkl893MeszarosB.SimonI.Dosztanyi,Z.Prediction of protein binding regions in disordered proteins200955e1000376MészárosB.SimonI.DosztányiZ.The expanding view of protein-protein interactions: complexes involving intrinsically disordered proteins2011832-s2.0-7995618934110.1088/1478-3975/8/3/035003035003BiaginiA.PuigserverA.Sequence analysis of the aminoacylase-1 family. A new proposed signature for metalloexopeptidases200112834694812-s2.0-003510676610.1016/S1096-4959(00)00341-9KubrychtJ.SiglerK.RůžičkaM.SoučekP.BoreckýJ.JežekP.Ancient phylogenetic beginnings of immunoglobulin hypermutation20066356917062-s2.0-3375150884110.1007/s00239-006-0051-9PrzybylskiD.RostB.Consensus sequences improve PSI-BLAST through mimicking profile-profile alignments2007357223822462-s2.0-3424985726710.1093/nar/gkm107PrzybylskiD.RostB.Powerful fusion: PSI-BLAST and consensus sequences20082418198719932-s2.0-5174911575810.1093/bioinformatics/btn384WrzeszczynskiK. O.RostB.Cell cycle kinases predicted from conserved biophysical properties20097436556682-s2.0-5984911844810.1002/prot.22181BeckK.HunterI.EngelJ.Structure and function of laminin: anatomy of a multidomain glycoprotein1990421481602-s2.0-0025165018DongX.-N.XiaoY.DierichM. P.ChenY. H.N- and C-domains of HIV-1 gp41: mutation, structure and functions20017532152202-s2.0-003586254510.1016/S0165-2478(00)00302-3SibbaldP. R.SommerfeldtH.ArgosP.Automated protein sequence pattern handling and PROSITE searching1991745355362-s2.0-0025948285GattikerA.GasteigerE.BairochA.ScanProsite: a reference implementation of a PROSITE scanning tool2002121071082-s2.0-0001244666SigristC. J. A.De CastroE.Langendijk-GenevauxP. S.Le SauxV.BairochA.HuloN.ProRule: a new database containing functional and structural information on PROSITE profiles20052121406040662-s2.0-2774458511310.1093/bioinformatics/bti614SigristC. J. A.CeruttiL.De CastroE.Langendijk-GenevauxP. S.BulliardV.BairochA.HuloN.PROSITE, a protein domain database for functional characterization and annotation2009381D161D1662-s2.0-7554908753310.1093/nar/gkp885gkp885DunbrackR. L.Jr.Comparative modeling of CASP3 targets using PSI-BLAST and SCWRL1999supplement 38187ElofssonA.A study on protein sequence alignment quality20024633303392-s2.0-003708354110.1002/prot.10043ZhouH.ZhouY.Single-body residue-level knowledge-based energy score combined with sequence-profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition2004554100510132-s2.0-254263192910.1002/prot.20007JaroszewskiL.RychlewskiL.LiZ.LiW.GodzikA.FFAS03: a server for profile-profile sequence alignments2005332W284W2882-s2.0-2314446391210.1093/nar/gki418JaroszewskiL.LiZ.CaiX. H.WeberC.GodzikA.FFAS server: novel features and applications2011392W38W442-s2.0-7996000180910.1093/nar/gkr441DongE.SmithJ.HeinzeS.AlexanderN.MeilerJ.BCL::Align-Sequence alignment and fold recognition with a custom scoring function online20084221-241462-s2.0-4904911552010.1016/j.gene.2008.06.006FallenK.BanerjeeS.SheehanJ.AddisonD.LewisL. M.MeilerJ.DentonJ. S.The Kir channel immunoglobulin domain is essential for Kir1.1 (ROMK) thermodynamic stability, trafficking and gating20093157682-s2.0-66149138041VishnepolskyB.PirtskhalavaM.CONTSOR—a new knowledge-based fold recognition potential, based on side chain orientation and contacts between residue terminal groups2012211134141YangJ.-M.TungC. H.Protein structure database search and evolutionary classification20063413364636592-s2.0-3374709625110.1093/nar/gkl395MavridisL.GhoorahA. W.VenkatramanV.RitchieD. W.Representing and comparing protein folds and fold families using three-dimensional shape-density representations2012802530545Di LenaP.FariselliP.MargaraL.VassuraM.CasadioR.Fast overlapping of protein contact maps by alignment of eigenvectors20102618225022582-s2.0-7795652685910.1093/bioinformatics/btq402RodionovM. A.JohnsonM. S.Residue-residue contact substitution probabilities derived from aligned three-dimensional structures and the identification of common folds1994312236623772-s2.0-0028557303GodzikA.SkolnickJ.KolinskiA.Regularities interaction patterns of globular proteins1993688018102-s2.0-0027504807VehlowC.StehrH.WinkelmannM.DuarteJ. M.PetzoldL.DinseJ.LappeM.CMView: interactive contact map visualization and analysis20112711157315742-s2.0-7995781121010.1093/bioinformatics/btr163btr163BarkerJ. A.ThorntonJ. M.An algorithm for constraint-based structural template matching: application to 3D templates with statistical analysis20031913164416492-s2.0-014185038610.1093/bioinformatics/btg226WardR. M.VennerE.DainesB.MurrayS.ErdinS.KristensenD. M.LichtargeO.Evolutionary trace annotation server: automated enzyme function prediction in protein structures using 3D templates20092511142614272-s2.0-6564911044310.1093/bioinformatics/btp160NebelJ. C.Generation of 3D templates of active sites of proteins with rigid prosthetic groups20062210118311892-s2.0-3364689047510.1093/bioinformatics/btl040KuksaP. P.PavlovicV.Efficient motif finding algorithms for large-alphabet inputs201011supplement 8, article S12-s2.0-7804948254210.1186/1471-2105-11-S8-S1DrorO.BenyaminiH.NussinovR.WolfsonH.MASS: multiple structural alignment by secondary structures2003191i95i1042-s2.0-014214333210.1093/bioinformatics/btg1012DrorO.BenyaminiH.NussinovR.WolfsonH. J.Multiple structural alignment by secondary structures: algorithm and applications20031211249225072-s2.0-014221012610.1110/ps.03200603WilliamsA.GilbertD. R.WestheadD. R.Multiple structural alignment for distantly related all β structures using TOPS pattern discovery and simulated annealing200316129139232-s2.0-1442286046KonagurthuA. S.WhisstockJ. C.StuckeyP. J.LeskA. M.MUSTANG: a multiple structural alignment algorithm20066435595742-s2.0-3374621885210.1002/prot.20921MichelettiC.OrlandH.MISTRAL: a tool for energy-based multiple structural alignment of proteins20092520266326692-s2.0-7034998327010.1093/bioinformatics/btp506KonagurthuA. S.ReboulC. F.SchmidbergerJ. W.IrvingJ. A.LeskA. M.StuckeyP. J.WhisstockJ. C.BuckleA. M.MUSTANG-MR structural sieving server: applications in protein structural analysis and crystallography2010542-s2.0-7795630166510.1371/journal.pone.0010048e10048SiuW. Y.MamoulisN.YiuS. M.ChanH. L.A data-mining approach for multiple structural alignment of proteins201048366370SunH.SacanA.FerhatosmanogluH.WangY.Smolign: a spatial motifs based protein multiple structural alignment method2012911410.1109/TCBB.2011.67MillerM. L.JensenL. J.DiellaF.JørgensenC.TintiM.LiL.HsiungM.ParkerS. A.BordeauxJ.Sicheritz-PontenT.OlhovskyM.PasculescuA.AlexanderJ.KnappS.BlomN.BorkP.LiS.CesareniG.PawsonT.TurkB. E.YaffeM. B.BrunakS.LindingR.Linear motif atlas for phosphorylation-dependent signaling2008135ra22-s2.0-5574911105810.1126/scisignal.1159433SchwartzD.ChurchG. M.Collection and motif-based prediction of phosphorylation sites in human viruses20103137rs22-s2.0-7795662073810.1126/scisignal.2001099StandleyD. M.YamashitaR.KinjoA. R.TohH.NakamuraH.SeSAW: balancing sequence and structural information in protein functional mapping2010269125812592-s2.0-7795279236210.1093/bioinformatics/btq116WongY. H.LeeT. Y.LiangH. K.HuangC. M.WangT. Y.YangY. H.ChuC. H.HuangH. D.KoM. T.HwangJ. K.KinasePhos 2.0: a web server for identifying protein kinase-specific phosphorylation sites based on sequences and coupling patterns200735W588W5942-s2.0-3454755598710.1093/nar/gkm322DurekP.SchudomaC.WeckwerthW.SelbigJ.WaltherD.Detection and characterization of 3D-signature phosphorylation site motifs and their contribution towards improved phosphorylation site prediction in proteins200910, article 1172-s2.0-6584941630010.1186/1471-2105-10-117EncinarJ. A.Fernandez-BallesterG.SánchezI. E.Hurtado-GomezE.StricherF.BeltraoP.SerranoL.ADAN: a database for prediction of protein-protein interaction of modular domains mediated by linear motifs20092518241824242-s2.0-6984910018010.1093/bioinformatics/btp424Marchler-BauerA.PanchenkoA. R.ShoemarkerB. A.ThiessenP. A.GeerL. Y.BryantS. H.CDD: a database of conserved domain alignments with links to domain three-dimensional structure20023012812832-s2.0-0036087630Marchler-BauerA.AndersonJ. B.ChitsazF.DerbyshireM. K.Deweese-ScottC.FongJ. H.GeerL. Y.GeerR. C.GonzalesN. R.GwadzM.HeS.HurwitzD. I.JacksonJ. D.KeZ.LanczyckiC. J.LiebertC. A.LiuC.LuF.LuS.MarchlerG. H.MullokandovM.SongJ. S.TasneemA.ThankiN.YamashitaR. A.ZhangD.ZhangN.BryantS. H.CDD: specific functional annotation with the Conserved Domain Database2009371D205D2102-s2.0-5814920323710.1093/nar/gkn845Marchler-BauerA.LuS.AndersonJ. B.ChitsazF.DerbyshireM. K.DeWeese-ScottC.FongJ. H.GeerL. Y.GeerR. C.GonzalesN. R.GwadzM.HurwitzD. I.JacksonJ. D.KeZ.LanczyckiC. J.LuF.MarchlerG. H.MullokandovM.OmelchenkoM. V.RobertsonC. L.SongJ. S.ThankiN.YamashitaR. A.ZhangD.ZhangN.ZhengC.BryantS. H.CDD: a Conserved Domain Database for the functional annotation of proteins2011391D225D2292-s2.0-7865128574810.1093/nar/gkq1189KundrotasP. J.ZhuZ.VakserI. A.GWIDD: genome-wide protein docking database2009381D513D5172-s2.0-7554908919210.1093/nar/gkp944PugalenthiG.SuganthanP. N.SowdhaminiR.ChakrabartiS.MegaMotifBase: a database of structural motifs in protein families and superfamilies2008361D218D2212-s2.0-3854915842910.1093/nar/gkm794MayP.KreuchwigA.SteinkeT.KochI.PTGL: a database for secondary structure-based protein topologies2010381D326D3302-s2.0-7554908685110.1093/nar/gkp980Shulman-PelegA.NussinovR.WolfsonH. J.RsiteDB: a database of protein binding pockets that interact with RNA nucleotide bases2009371D369D3732-s2.0-5814919620010.1093/nar/gkn759GeysenH. M.RoddaS. J.MasonT. J.A priori delineation of a peptide which mimics a discontinuous antigenic determinant19862377097152-s2.0-0022646579PenningerJ. M.BachmaierK.Review of microbial infections and the immune response to cardiac antigens20001816S498S5042-s2.0-0034086561Fernandez-FuentesN.OlivaB.FiserA.A supersecondary structure library and search algorithm for modeling loops in protein structures2006347208520972-s2.0-3364592338510.1093/nar/gkl156LibbeyJ. E.McCoyL. L.FujinamiR. S.Molecular mimicry in multiple sclerosis2007791271472-s2.0-3424863316010.1016/S0074-7742(07)79006-2SmithG. P.Filamentous fusion phage: novel expression vectors that display cloned antigens on the virion surface19852284705131513172-s2.0-0021818675DevlinJ. J.PanganibanL. C.DevlinP. E.Random peptide libraries: a source of specific protein binding molecules199024949674044062-s2.0-0025004285ScottJ. K.SmithG. P.Searching for peptide ligands with an epitope library199024949673863902-s2.0-0025112794JellisC. L.CradickT. J.RennertP.SalinasP.BoydJ.AmiraultT.GrayG. S.Defining critical residues in the epitope for a HIV-neutralizing monoclonal antibody using phage display and peptide array technologies1993137163682-s2.0-002776341810.1016/0378-1119(93)90252-XMatthewsD. J.WellsJ. A.Substrate phage: selection of protease substrates by monovalent phage display19932605111111311172-s2.0-0027316004KoivunenE.WangB.RuoslahtiE.Isolation of a highly specific ligand for the α5β1 integrin from a phage display library199412433733802-s2.0-0027976103PasqualiniR.KoivunenE.RuoslahtiE.A peptide isolated from phage display libraries is a structural and functional mimic of an RGD-binding site on integrins19951305118911962-s2.0-002912042810.1083/jcb.130.5.1189SchmitzR.BaumannG.GramH.Catalytic specificity of phosphotyrosine kinases Blk, Lyn, c-Src and Syk as assessed by phage display199626056646772-s2.0-003056483310.1006/jmbi.1996.0429FackF.Hügle-DörrB.SongD.QueitschI.PetersenG.BautzE. K. F.Epitope mapping by phage display: random versus gene-fragment libraries19972061-243522-s2.0-034294115110.1016/S0022-1759(97)00083-5BlüthnerM.SchäferC.SchneiderC.BautzF. A.Identification of major linear epitopes on the sp100 nuclear PBC autoantigen by the gene-fragment phage-display technology199929133422-s2.0-0344958748LadnerR. C.SatoA. K.GorzelanyJ.de SouzaM.Phage display-derived peptides as therapeutic alternatives to antibodies20049125255292-s2.0-294256076710.1016/S1359-6446(04)03104-6BrissetteR.PrendergastJ. K. A.GoldsteinN. I.Identification of cancer targets and therapeutics using phage display2006933633692-s2.0-33646839479HohmT.LimbourgP.HoffmannD.A multiobjective evolutionary method for the design of peptidic mimotopes20061311131252-s2.0-3364486606510.1089/cmb.2006.13.113CastelG.ChtéouiM.HeydB.TordoN.Phage display of combinatorial peptide libraries: application to antiviral research2011165349935182-s2.0-7995759650110.3390/molecules16053499SherevT.WiesmüllerK. H.WaldenP.Mimotopes of tumor-associated T-cell epitopes for cancer vaccines determined with combinatorial peptide libraries200325153612-s2.0-004191254810.1385/MB:25:1:53ZhongY. W.XuD. P.LiX. D.DaiJ. Z.XuB.LiL.Epitope screening of influenza A (H3N2) by using phage display library20092342722742-s2.0-77449123795SunE.-C.ZhaoJ.YangT.LiuN. H.GengH. W.QinY. L.WangL. F.BuZ. G.YangY. H.LuntR. A.WangL. F.WuD. L.Identification of a conserved JEV serocomplex B-cell epitope by screening a phage-display peptide library with a mAb generated against West Nile virus capsid protein201181001102-s2.0-7995220242910.1186/1743-422X-8-100RothenfluhD. A.BermudezH.O'NeilC. P.HubbellJ. A.Biofunctional polymer nanoparticles for intra-articular targeting and retention in cartilage2008732482542-s2.0-3974919812210.1038/nmat2116GiordanoR. J.EdwardsJ. K.TuderR. M.ArapW.PasqualiniR.Combinatorial ligand-directed lung targeting2009654114152-s2.0-6924921668910.1513/pats.200903-014AWPassarellaR. J.SprattD. E.van der EndeA. E.PhillipsJ. G.WuH.SathiyakumarV.ZhouL.HallahanD. E.HarthE.DiazR.Targeted nanoparticles that deliver a sustained, specific release of paclitaxel to irradiated tumors20107011455045592-s2.0-7795317117610.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0339LeeG. Y.KimJ. H.OhG. T.LeeB. H.KwonI. C.KimI. S.Molecular targeting of atherosclerotic plaques by a stabilin-2-specific peptide ligand201115522112172-s2.0-7996067877110.1016/j.jconrel.2011.07.010LiJ.FengL.FanL.ZhaY.GuoL.ZhangQ.ChenJ.PangZ.WangY.JiangX.YangV. C.WenL.Targeting the brain with PEG-PLGA nanoparticles modified with phage-displayed peptides20113221494349502-s2.0-7995578468910.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.03.031ValuevV. P.AfonnikovD. A.PonomarenkoM. P.MilanesiL.KolchanovN. A.ASPD (Artificially Selected Proteins/Peptides Database): a database of proteins and peptides evolved in vitro20023012002022-s2.0-0036084130MandavaS.MakowskiL.DevarapalliS.UzubellJ.RodiD. J.RELIC—a bioinformatics server for combinatorial peptide analysis and identification of protein-ligand interaction sites200445143914602-s2.0-244250762610.1002/pmic.200300680CaseyJ. L.ColeyA. M.FoleyM.Phage display of peptides in ligand selection for use in affinity chromatography20074211111242-s2.0-40549137774MumeyB. M.BaileyB. W.KirkpatrickB.JesaitisA. J.AngelT.DratzE. A.A new method for mapping discontinuous antibody epitopes to reveal structural features of proteins2003103-45555672-s2.0-014223621410.1089/10665270360688183MumeyB.OhlerN.AngelT.JesaitisA.DratzE.Filtering epitope alignments to improve protein surface prediction20064331648657MoreauV.GranierC.VillardS.LauneD.MolinaF.Discontinuous epitope prediction based on mimotope analysis2006229108810952-s2.0-3364615021310.1093/bioinformatics/btl012RuB.HuangJ.DaiP.LiS.XiaZ.DingH.LinH.GuoF. B.WangX.MimoDB: a new repository for mimotope data derived from phage display technology20101511827982882-s2.0-7864947270910.3390/molecules15118279HuangJ.RuB.ZhuP.MimoDB 2.0: a mimotope database and beyond201240D271D277MayroseI.ShlomiT.RubinsteinN. D.GershoniJ. M.RuppinE.SharanR.PupkoT.Epitope mapping using combinatorial phage-display libraries: a graph-based algorithm200735169782-s2.0-3384667218110.1093/nar/gkl975HuangY. X.BaoY. L.GuoS. Y.WangY.ZhouC. G.LiY. X.Pep-3D-Search: a method for B-cell epitope prediction based on mimotope analysis20089, article 5382-s2.0-6064908439610.1186/1471-2105-9-538ChenW. H.SunP. P.LuY.GuoW. W.HuangY. X.MaZ. Q.MimoPro: a more efficient Web-based tool for epitope prediction using phage display libraries201112, article 19910.1186/1471-2105-12-199DenisovaG. F.DenisovD. A.BramsonJ. L.Applying bioinformatics for antibody epitope prediction using affinity-selected mimotopes—relevance for vaccine design20106supplement 2, article S62-s2.0-7814935669810.1186/1745-7580-6-S2-S6BrysonC. J.JonesT. D.BakerM. P.Prediction of immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: validity of computational tools2010241182-s2.0-7514915237610.2165/11318560-000000000-00000SunP.ChenW.HuangY.WangH.MaZ.LvY.Epitope prediction based on random peptide library screening: benchmark dataset and prediction tools evaluation2011166497149932-s2.0-7995957814810.3390/molecules16064971Kulkarni-KaleU.BhosleS.KolaskarA. S.CEP: a conformational epitope prediction server2005332W168W1712-s2.0-2314445757710.1093/nar/gki460MoreauV.FleuryC.PiquerD.NguyenC.NovaliN.VillardS.LauneD.MolinaF.PEPOP: computational design of immunogenic peptides20089, article 712-s2.0-4044909197910.1186/1471-2105-9-71PonomarenkoJ.BuiH.-H.LiW.FussederN.BourneP. E.SetteA.PetersB.ElliPro: a new structure-based tool for the prediction of antibody epitopes20089, article 5142-s2.0-5804918713810.1186/1471-2105-9-514RubinsteinN. D.MayroseI.MartzE.PupkoT.Epitopia: a web-server for predicting B-cell epitopes200910, article 2872-s2.0-7044944112310.1186/1471-2105-10-287Van de WaterJ.GershwinM. E.LeungP.AnsariA.CoppelR. L.The autoepitope of the 74-kD mitochondrial autoantigen of primary biliary cirrhosis corresponds to the functional site of dihydrolipoamide acetyltransferase19881676179117992-s2.0-0023772131El-KasedR. F.KoyC.DeierlingT.LorenzP.QianZ.LiY.ThiesenH. J.GlockerM. O.Mass spectrometric and peptide chip epitope mapping of rheumatoid arthritis autoantigen RA3320091567477592-s2.0-7364912353710.1255/ejms.1040BurkartV.SiegenthalerR. K.BlasiusE.VandenbroeckK.AllozaI.FingbergW.SchlootN. C.ChristenP.KolbH.High affinity binding of hydrophobic and autoantigenic regions of proinsulin to the 70 kDa chaperone DnaK2010111, article 442-s2.0-7804948197510.1186/1471-2091-11-44LiangS.ZhengD.StandleyD. M.YaoB.ZachariasM.ZhangC.EPSVR and EPMeta: prediction of antigenic epitopes using support vector regression and multiple server results201011, article 3812-s2.0-7795454384910.1186/1471-2105-11-381WeeL. J. K.SimarmataD.KamY. W.NgL. F. P.TongJ. C.SVM-based prediction of linear B-cell epitopes using Bayes Feature Extraction201011supplement 4, article S212-s2.0-7864979650810.1186/1471-2164-11-S4-S21SuC.-H.PalN. R.LinK.-L.ChungI.-F.Identification of amino acid propensities that are strong determinants of linear B-cell epitope using neural networks201272e30617AnsariH. R.RaghavaG. P.Identification of conformational B-cell Epitopes in an antigen from its primary sequence201061, article 62-s2.0-7795798496510.1186/1745-7580-6-6SweredoskiM. J.BaldiP.COBEpro: a novel system for predicting continuous B-cell epitopes20092231131202-s2.0-6074912866310.1093/protein/gzn075WangY.WuW.NegreN. N.WhiteK. P.LiC.ShahP. K.Determinants of antigenicity and specificity in immune response for protein sequences201112, article 2512-s2.0-7995928275810.1186/1471-2105-12-251LarsenM. V.LundegaardC.LamberthK.BuusS.BrunakS.LundO.NielsenM.An integrative approach to CTL epitope prediction: a combined algorithm integrating MHC class I binding, TAP transport efficiency, and proteasomal cleavage predictions2005358229523032-s2.0-2384452819110.1002/eji.200425811LarsenM. V.LundegaardC.LamberthK.BuusS.LundO.NielsenM.Large-scale validation of methods for cytotoxic T-lymphocyte epitope prediction20078, article 4242-s2.0-3804916909210.1186/1471-2105-8-424DoytchinovaI. A.GuanP.FlowerD. R.EpiJen: a server for multistep T cell epitope prediction20067, article 1312-s2.0-3364547216910.1186/1471-2105-7-131FeldhahnM.DönnesP.ThielP.KohlbacherO.FRED—a framework for T-cell epitope detection20092520275827592-s2.0-7034998088210.1093/bioinformatics/btp409HattotuwagamaC. K.ToselandC. P.GuanP.TaylorD. J.HemsleyS. L.DoytchinovaI. A.FlowerD. R.Toward prediction of class II mouse major histocompatibility complex peptide binding affinity: in silico bioinformatic evaluation using partial least squares, a robust multivariate statistical technique2006463149115022-s2.0-3374536068210.1021/ci050380dLundegaardC.LundO.NielsenM.Prediction of epitopes using neural network based methods20113741-226342-s2.0-7834928734510.1016/j.jim.2010.10.011TungC.-W.ZiehmM.KämperA.KohlbacherO.HoS.-Y.POPISK: T-cell reactivity prediction using support vector machines and string kernels201112, article 446KimY.SetteA.PetersB.Applications for T-cell epitope queries and tools in the Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource20113741-262692-s2.0-7854929247010.1016/j.jim.2010.10.010PonomarenkoJ.PapangelopoulosN.ZajoncD. M.PetersB.SetteA.BourneP. E.IEDB-3D: structural data within the immune epitope database2011391D1164D11702-s2.0-7865132911510.1093/nar/gkq888ModrowS.HahnB. H.ShawG. M.Computer-assisted analysis of envelope protein sequences of seven human immunodeficiency virus isolates: prediction of antigenic epitopes in conserved and variable regions19876125705782-s2.0-0023107134SchaferJ. R. A.JesdaleB. M.GeorgeJ. A.KouttabN. M.De GrootA. S.Prediction of well-conserved HIV-1 ligands using a matrix-based algorithm, EpiMatrix19981619188018842-s2.0-003221091110.1016/S0264-410X(98)00173-XSungM. H.SimonR.Genomewide conserved epitope profiles of HIV-1 predicted by biophysical properties of MHC binding peptides20041111251452-s2.0-184255521710.1089/106652704773416920XiaoY.SegalM. R.Prediction of genomewide conserved epitope profiles of HIV-1: classifier choice and peptide representation200541, article 252-s2.0-25444530021LacerdaM.SchefflerK.SeoigheC.Epitope discovery with phylogenetic hidden markov models2010275121212202-s2.0-7795158550210.1093/molbev/msq008RusertP.KrarupA.MagnusC.BrandenbergO. F.WeberJ.EhlertA. K.RegoesR. R.GünthardH. F.TrkolaA.Interaction of the gp120 V1V2 loop with a neighboring gp120 unit shields the HIV envelope trimer against cross-neutralizing antibodies20112087141914332-s2.0-7996034610510.1084/jem.20110196PickettB. E.SadatE. L.ZhangY.ViPR: an open bioinformatics database and analysis resource for virology research201240D593D598HuX.ZhouW.UdakaK.MamitsukaH.ZhuS.MetaMHC: a meta approach to predict peptides binding to MHC molecules2010382W474W4792-s2.0-7795425959710.1093/nar/gkq407ToussaintN. C.KohlbacherO.OptiTope—a web server for the selection of an optimal set of peptides for epitope-based vaccines2009372W617W6222-s2.0-6784911155310.1093/nar/gkp293Garcia-BoronatM.Diez-RiveroC. M.ReinherzE. L.RecheP. A.PVS: a web server for protein sequence variability analysis tuned to facilitate conserved epitope discovery200836W35W412-s2.0-4844909526710.1093/nar/gkn211RecheP. A.ReinherzE. L.PEPVAC: a web server for multi-epitope vaccine development based on the prediction of supertypic MHC ligands2005332W138W1422-s2.0-2314444308210.1093/nar/gki357RecheP. A.GluttingJ. P.ReinherzE. L.Prediction of MHC class I binding peptides using profile motifs20026397017092-s2.0-003672720710.1016/S0198-8859(02)00432-9RecheP. A.GluttingJ. P.ZhangH.ReinherzE. L.Enhancement to the RANKPEP resource for the prediction of peptide binding to MHC molecules using profiles20045664054192-s2.0-544424986010.1007/s00251-004-0709-7LengauerT.RareyM.Computational methods for biomolecular docking1996634024062-s2.0-002990276310.1016/S0959-440X(96)80061-3HanschC.Dihydrofolate reductase inhibition. A study in the use of X-ray crystallography, molecular graphics, and quantitative structure-activity relations in drug design19821653913952-s2.0-0019931448KuntzI. D.BlaneyJ. M.OatleyS. J.LangridgeR.FerrinT. E.A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions198216122692882-s2.0-0020491251HorjalesE.BrandenC. I.Docking of cyclohexanol-derivatives into the active site of liver alcohol dehydrogenase. Using computer graphics and energy minimization19852602915445154512-s2.0-0022347098DesJarlaisR. L.SheridanR. P.DixonJ. S.KuntzI. D.VenkataraghavanR.Docking flexible ligands to macromolecular receptors by molecular shape19862911214921532-s2.0-0022993246StamatoF. M. L. G.LongoE.FerreiraR.TapiaO.The catalytic mechanism of serine proteases. III. An Indo-ISCRF study of the methylacetate docking in α-chymotrypsin1986118145592-s2.0-0022608230JorgensenW. L.Rusting of the lock and key model for protein-ligand binding199125450349549552-s2.0-0026425975ChaudhuryS.GrayJ. J.Conformer selection and induced fit in flexible backbone protein-protein docking using computational and NMR ensembles20083814106810872-s2.0-4844909411210.1016/j.jmb.2008.05.042OlsonA. J.GoodsellD. S.Automated docking and the search for HIV protease inhibitors199883-42732852-s2.0-0031600220MueggeI.MartinY. C.HajdukP. J.FesikS. W.Evaluation of PMF scoring in docking weak ligands to the FK506 binding protein19994214249825032-s2.0-003356621110.1021/jm990073xLiseS.Walker-TaylorA.JonesD. T.Docking protein domains in contact space20067, article 3102-s2.0-3374830062310.1186/1471-2105-7-310NovikovF. N.StroylovV. S.StroganovO. V.KulkovV.ChilovG. G.Developing novel approaches to improve binding energy estimation and virtual screening: a PARP case study20091511133713472-s2.0-7034924697010.1007/s00894-009-0497-yPierceB. G.HouraiY.WengZ.Accelerating protein docking in ZDOCK using an advanced 3D convolution library201169e24657ChoH.YunC. W.ParkW. K.KongJ. Y.KimK. S.ParkY.LeeS.KimB. K.Modulation of the activity of pro-inflammatory enzymes, COX-2 and iNOS, by chrysin derivatives200449137432-s2.0-014221554910.1016/S1043-6618(03)00248-2BaiS.DuT.KhosraviE.Applying internal coordinate mechanics to model the interactions between 8R-lipoxygenase and its substrate201011supplement 6, article S22-s2.0-7795770392310.1186/1471-2105-11-2PedrettiA.VillaL.VistoliG.Modeling of binding modes and inhibition mechanism of some natural ligands of farnesyl transferase using molecular docking2002457146014652-s2.0-003718738810.1021/jm011075wKoehlerN. K. U.YangC. Y.VaradyJ.LuY.WuX. W.LiuM.YinD.BartelsM.XuB. Y.RollerP. P.LongY. Q.LiP.KattahM.CohnM. L.MoranK.TilleyE.RichertJ. R.WangS.Structure-based discovery of nonpeptidic small organic compounds to block the T cell response to myelin basic protein20044721498949972-s2.0-474437222710.1021/jm030362sMichelsA. W.OstrovD. A.ZhangL.Structure-based selection of small molecules to alter allele-specific MHC class II antigen presentation20111871159215930Zaheer-Ul-HaqKhanW.Molecular and structural determinants of adamantyl susceptibility to HLA-DRs allelic variants: an in silico approach to understand the mechanism of MLEs2011251811012-s2.0-7865124246510.1007/s10822-010-9404-yBhingeA.ChakrabartiP.UthanumallianK.BajajK.ChakrabortyK.VaradarajanR.Accurate detection of protein:ligand binding sites using molecular dynamics simulations20041211198919992-s2.0-794422565510.1016/j.str.2004.09.005TangX. N.LoC. W.ChuangY. C.ChenC. T.SunY. C.HongY. R.YangC. N.Prediction of the binding mode between GSK3β and a peptide derived from GSKIP using molecular dynamics simulation20119574614712-s2.0-7995546642210.1002/bip.21603LiX.KeskinO.MaB.NussinovR.LiangJ.Protein-protein interactions: hot spots and structurally conserved residues often locate in complemented pockets that pre-organized in the unbound states: implications for docking200434437817952-s2.0-794422597910.1016/j.jmb.2004.09.051HuangB.SchroederM.Using protein binding site prediction to improve protein docking20084221-214212-s2.0-4904910513110.1016/j.gene.2008.06.014HetényiC.van der SpoelD.Toward prediction of functional protein pockets using blind docking and pocket search algorithms20112058808932-s2.0-7995448085410.1002/pro.618EyrischS.HelmsV.Transient pockets on protein surfaces involved in protein-protein interaction20075015345734642-s2.0-3454758315210.1021/jm070095gDuanY.ReddyB. V. B.KaznessisY. N.Residue conservation information for generating near-native structures in protein-protein docking2006447938062-s2.0-3375043353710.1142/S0219720006002223CockellS. J.OlivaB.JacksonR. M.Structure-based evaluation of in silico predictions of protein-protein interactions using comparative docking20072355735812-s2.0-3404711455410.1093/bioinformatics/btl661PierriC. L.ParisiG.PorcelliV.Computational approaches for protein function prediction: a combined strategy from multiple sequence alignment to molecular docking-based virtual screening201018049169517122-s2.0-7795509690010.1016/j.bbapap.2010.04.008HeberléG.de AzevedoW. F.Bio-inspired algorithms applied to molecular docking simulations2011189133913522-s2.0-7995280326010.2174/092986711795029573PalmaP. N.KrippahlL.WamplerJ. E.MouraJ. J. G.Bigger: a new (soft) docking algorithm for predicting protein interactions20003943723842-s2.0-0034212826GiordanettoF.CotestaS.CatanaC.TrossetJ. Y.VulpettiA.StoutenP. F. W.KroemerR. T.Novel scoring functions comprising QXP, SASA, and protein side-chain entropy terms20044438828932-s2.0-294270429210.1021/ci0499626van DijkA. D. J.De VriesS. J.DominguezC.ChenH.ZhouH.-X.BonvinA. M. J. J.Data-driven docking: HADDOCK'S adventures in CAPRI20056022322382-s2.0-2164445418410.1002/prot.20563BetziS.SuhreK.ChétritB.GuerlesquinF.MorelliX.GFscore: a general nonlinear consensus scoring function for high-throughput docking2006464170417122-s2.0-3374686793510.1021/ci0600758DurrantJ. D.McCammonJ. A.NNScore: a neural-network-based scoring function for the characterization of protein-ligand complexes20105010186518712-s2.0-7795858523310.1021/ci100244vDurrantJ. D.McCammonJ. A.NNScore 2.0: a neural-network receptor-ligand scoring function20115111289729032-s2.0-77958585233AhmadS.MizuguchiK.Partner-aware prediction of interacting residues in protein-protein complexes from sequence data2011612e29104GrosdidierA.ZoeteV.MichielinO.SwissDock, a protein-small molecule docking web service based on EADock DSS2011392W270W2772-s2.0-7996002936110.1093/nar/gkr366DolghihE.BryantC.RensloA. R.JacobsonM. P.Predicting binding to P-glycoprotein by flexible receptor docking2011762-s2.0-7995983386210.1371/journal.pcbi.1002083e1002083PrakhovN. D.ChernorudskiyA. L.GainullinM. R.VSDocker: a tool for parallel high-throughput virtual screening using AutoDock on Windows-based computer clusters20102610137413752-s2.0-7795283237810.1093/bioinformatics/btq149RenJ.WilliamsN.ClementiL.KrishnanS.LiW. W.Opal web services for biomedical applications2010382W724W7312-s2.0-7795428668210.1093/nar/gkq503ZhangQ.YangJ.LiangK.FengL.LiS.WanJ.XuX.YangG.LiuD.YangS.Binding interaction analysis of the active site and its inhibitors for neuraminidase (N1 Subtype) of human influenza virus by the integration of molecular ducking, FMO calculation and 3D-QSAR CoMFA modeling2008489180218122-s2.0-5424916345610.1021/ci800041kLiH.GaoZ.KangL.ZhangH.YangK.YulK.LuoX.ZhuW.ChenK.ShenJ.WangX.JiangH.TarFisDock: a web server for identifying drug targets with docking approach200634W219W2242-s2.0-3374782959010.1093/nar/gkl114MartinL.CatherinotV.LabesseG.kinDOCK: a tool for comparative docking of protein kinase ligands200634W325W3292-s2.0-3374782958910.1093/nar/gkl211LavecchiaA.CosconatiS.LimongelliV.NovellinoE.Modeling of Cdc25B dual specifity protein phosphatase inhibitors: docking of ligands and enzymatic inhibition mechanism2006155405502-s2.0-3364677601110.1002/cmdc.200500092SchapiraM.RaakaB. M.DasS.FanL.TotrovM.ZhouZ.WilsonS. R.AbagyanR.SamuelsH. H.Discovery of diverse thyroid hormone receptor antagonists by high-throughput docking200310012735473592-s2.0-003749503310.1073/pnas.1131854100ChenR.LiL.WengZ.ZDOCK: an initial-stage protein-docking algorithm200352180872-s2.0-003852630310.1002/prot.10389PierceB.TongW.WengZ.M-ZDOCK: a grid-based approach for Cn symmetric multimer docking2005218147214782-s2.0-1744438565810.1093/bioinformatics/bti229GhoorahA. W.DevignesM. D.Smaïl-TabboneM.RitchieD. W.Spatial clustering of protein binding sites for template based protein docking2011272028202827LyskovS.GrayJ. J.The RosettaDock server for local protein-protein docking200836W2332382-s2.0-4844910539310.1093/nar/gkn216ComeauS. R.GatchellD. W.VajdaS.CamachoC. J.ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes200420145502-s2.0-034583230110.1093/bioinformatics/btg371ComeauS. R.GatchellD. W.VajdaS.CamachoC. J.ClusPro: a fully automated algorithm for protein-protein docking200432W96W992-s2.0-324287781510.1093/nar/gkh354TuszynskaI.BujnickiJ. M.DARS-RNP and QUASI-RNP: new statistical potentials for protein-RNA docking201112, article 348LiuZ.GuoJ. T.LiT.XuY.Structure-based prediction of transcription factor binding sites using a protein-DNA docking approach2008724111411242-s2.0-5134913497410.1002/prot.22002XuB.YangY.LiangH.ZhouY.An all-atom knowledge-based energy function for protein-DNA threading, docking decoy discrimination, and prediction of transcription-factor binding profiles20097637187302-s2.0-6804911895010.1002/prot.22384PatronovA.DimitrovI.FlowerD. R.DoytchinovaI.Peptide binding prediction for the human class II MHC allele HLA-DP2: a molecular docking approach201111, article 322-s2.0-7996023094410.1186/1472-6807-11-32SircarA.GrayJ. J.SnugDock: paratope structural optimization during antibody-antigen docking compensates for errors in antibody homology models2010612-s2.0-7674915389610.1371/journal.pcbi.1000644e1000644KhanJ. M.RanganathanS.PDOCK: a new technique for rapid and accurate docking of peptide ligands to Major Histocompatibility Complexes20106supplement 1, article S22-s2.0-7795725859910.1186/1745-7580-6-S1-S2TodmanS. J.Halling-BrownM. D.DaviesM. N.FlowerD. R.KayikciM.MossD. S.Toward the atomistic simulation of T cell epitopes. Automated construction of MHC: peptide structures for free energy calculations20082669579612-s2.0-3734904635910.1016/j.jmgm.2007.07.005SathyapriyaR.VijayabaskarM. S.VishveshwaraS.Insights into protein-DNA interactions through structure network analysis2008492-s2.0-5294912364310.1371/journal.pcbi.1000170e1000170SaizL.VilarJ. M. G.Protein-protein/DNA interaction networks: versatile macromolecular structures for the control of gene expression2008252472552-s2.0-5404909555110.1049/iet-syb:20080091MataJ.Genome-wide mapping of myosin protein-RNA networks suggests the existence of specialized protein production sites20102424794842-s2.0-7614909788810.1096/fj.09-140335AscanoM.HafnerM.CekanP.GerstbergerS.TuschlT.Identification of RNA-protein interaction networks using PAR-CLIP201132159177SpirinV.MirnyL. A.Protein complexes and functional modules in molecular networks20031002112123121282-s2.0-014205983610.1073/pnas.2032324100WangJ.LiM.DengY.PanY.Recent advances in clustering methods for protein interaction networks2010113, article S102-s2.0-7864967999410.1186/1471-2164-11-S3-S10WuZ.ZhaoX.ChenL.Identifying responsive functional modules from protein-protein interaction network20092732712772-s2.0-7034933103210.1007/s10059-009-0035-xMiloR.Shen-OrrS.ItzkovitzS.KashtanN.ChklovskiiD.AlonU.Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks200229855948248272-s2.0-003717467010.1126/science.298.5594.824CirielloG.GuerraC.A review on models and algorithms for motif discovery in protein-protein interaction networks2008721471562-s2.0-4434910781810.1093/bfgp/eln015DutkowskiJ.TiurynJ.Identification of functional modules from conserved ancestral protein-protein interactions20072313i149i1582-s2.0-3454784025410.1093/bioinformatics/btm194QianX.YoonB. J.Effective identification of conserved pathways in biological networks using hidden Markov models20094122-s2.0-7794953224010.1371/journal.pone.0008070e8070LimJ.HaoT.ShawC.PatelA. J.SzabóG.RualJ. F.FiskC. J.LiN.SmolyarA.HillD. E.BarabásiA. L.VidalM.ZoghbiH. Y.A protein-protein interaction network for human inherited ataxias and disorders of purkinje cell degeneration200612548018142-s2.0-3364668796310.1016/j.cell.2006.03.032WangL.KhankhanianP.BaranziniS. E.MousaviP.iCTNet: a Cytoscape plugin to produce and analyze integrative complex traits networks201112, article 380SuthramS.DudleyJ. T.ChiangA. P.ChenR.HastieT. J.ButteA. J.Network-based elucidation of human disease similarities reveals common functional modules enriched for pluripotent drug targets2010622-s2.0-7764922297210.1371/journal.pcbi.1000662e1000662DuttaB.PusztaiL.QiY.A network-based, integrative study to identify core biological pathways that drive breast cancer clinical subtypes2012106611071116ErtenS.BebekG.KoyutürkM.Vavien: an algorithm for prioritizing candidate disease genes based on topological similarity of proteins in interaction networks20111811156115742-s2.0-79953174587NitschD.TrancheventL. C.GonalvesJ. P.VogtJ. K.MadeiraS. C.MoreauY.PINTA: a web server for network-based gene prioritization from expression data2011392W334W3382-s2.0-7995992295410.1093/nar/gkr289DunkerA. K.CorteseM. S.RomeroP.IakouchevaL. M.UverskyV. N.Flexible nets: the roles of intrinsic disorder in protein interaction networks200527220512951482-s2.0-2714446491010.1111/j.1742-4658.2005.04948.xPatilA.KinoshitaK.NakamuraH.Hub promiscuity in protein-protein interaction networks2010114193019432-s2.0-7795189812110.3390/ijms11041930PatilA.KinoshitaK.NakamuraH.Domain distribution and intrinsic disorder in hubs in the human protein-protein interaction network2010198146114682-s2.0-7795512183610.1002/pro.425BustosD. M.The role of protein disorder in the 14-3-3 interaction network201281178184Ivanyi-NagyR.DarlixJ. L.Intrinsic disorder in the core proteins of flaviviruses2010178101910252-s2.0-7795805087510.2174/092986610791498911WangJ.CaoZ.ZhaoL.LiS.Novel strategies for drug discovery based on intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs)2011125320532192-s2.0-7995784600710.3390/ijms12053205EkmanD.LightS.BjörklundA. K.ElofssonA.What properties characterize the hub proteins of the protein-protein interaction network of Saccharomyces cerevisiae?200676, article R452-s2.0-3374568660310.1186/gb-2006-7-6-r45SinghG. P.GanapathiM.DashD.Role of intrinsic disorder in transient interactions of hub proteins20076647617652-s2.0-3384708123910.1002/prot.21281KahaliB.AhmadS.GhoshT. C.Exploring the evolutionary rate differences of party hub and date hub proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae protein-protein interaction network20094291-218222-s2.0-5704915651910.1016/j.gene.2008.09.032KatebiA. R.KloczkowskiA.JerniganR. L.Structural interpretation of protein-protein interaction network201010supplement 1, article S42-s2.0-7795259621310.1186/1472-6807-10-S1-S4WangF.LiuM.SongB.Prediction and characterization of protein-protein interaction networks in swine201210, article 2PangE.LinK.Yeast protein-protein interaction binding sites: prediction from the motif-motif, motif-domain and domain-domain levels2010611216421732-s2.0-7795789956510.1039/c0mb00038hKalaevM.SmootM.IdekerT.SharanR.NetworkBLAST: comparative analysis of protein networks20082445945962-s2.0-3914908772010.1093/bioinformatics/btm630JungS. H.HyunB.JangW. H.HurH. Y.HanD. S.Protein complex prediction based on simultaneous protein interaction network20092633853912-s2.0-7794950357710.1093/bioinformatics/btp668LoY.-S.LinC. Y.YangJ. M.PCFamily: a web server for searching homologous protein complexes2010382W516W5222-s2.0-7795425926410.1093/nar/gkq464PhanH. T.SternbergM. J.PINALOG: a novel approach to align protein interaction networks—implications for complex detection and function prediction20122812391245FoxA. D.HescottB. J.BlumerA. C.SlonimD. K.Connectedness of PPI network neighborhoods identifies regulatory hub proteins2011278113511422-s2.0-7995448622810.1093/bioinformatics/btr099BeckerE.RobissonB.ChappleC. E.GuénocheA.BrunC.Multifunctional proteins revealed by overlapping clustering in protein interaction network20122818490DittrichM. T.KlauG. W.RosenwaldA.DandekarT.MüllerT.Identifying functional modules in protein-protein interaction networks: an integrated exact approach20082413i223i2312-s2.0-4624912854310.1093/bioinformatics/btn161SunC. H.HwangT.OhK.YiG. S.DynaMod: dynamic functional modularity analysis2010382W103W1082-s2.0-7795425482110.1093/nar/gkq362CuiG.ShresthaR.HanK.ModuleSearch: finding functional modules in a protein-protein interaction network201215769169910.1080/10255842.2011.555404ErtenS.BebekG.EwingR. M.KoyutürkM.DADA: degree-aware algorithms for network-based disease gene prioritization201141, article 192-s2.0-7995946468310.1186/1756-0381-4-19ShannonP.MarkielA.OzierO.BaligaN. S.WangJ. T.RamageD.AminN.SchwikowskiB.IdekerT.Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks20031311249825042-s2.0-024249078010.1101/gr.1239303MartinA.OchagaviaM. E.RabasaL. C.MirandaJ.Fernandez-de-CossioJ.BringasR.BisoGenet: a new tool for gene network building, visualization and analysis201011, article 912-s2.0-7794950498510.1186/1471-2105-11-91BrucknerS.HüffnerF.KarpR. M.ShamirR.SharanR.Torque: topology-free querying of protein interaction networks2009372W106W1082-s2.0-6784911879510.1093/nar/gkp474FranzosaE.LinghuB.XiaY.Computational reconstruction of protein-protein interaction networks: algorithms and issues2009541891002-s2.0-67149123401LiS. S.WuC.Using peptide array to identify binding motifs and interaction networks for modular domains200957067762-s2.0-73949115304SardiuM. E.WashburnM. P.Building protein-protein interaction networks with proteomics and informatics tools20112862723645236512-s2.0-7995989663910.1074/jbc.R110.174052Sanz-PamplonaR.BerenguerA.SoleX.Tools for protein-protein interaction network analysis in cancer research2012141314SzklarczykD.FranceschiniA.KuhnM.SimonovicM.RothA.MinguezP.DoerksT.StarkM.MullerJ.BorkP.JensenL. J.Von MeringC.The STRING database in 2011: functional interaction networks of proteins, globally integrated and scored2011391D561D5682-s2.0-7865132434710.1093/nar/gkq973TaboureauO.NielsenS. K.AudouzeK.WeinholdN.EdsgärdD.RoqueF. S.KouskoumvekakiI.BoraA.CurpanR.JensenT. S.BrunakS.OpreaT. I.ChemProt: a disease chemical biology database2011391D367D3722-s2.0-7865129626410.1093/nar/gkq906TacutuR.BudovskyA.FraifeldV. E.The NetAge database: a compendium of networks for longevity, age-related diseases and associated processes20101145135222-s2.0-7795495164610.1007/s10522-010-9265-8BreitkreutzB.-J.StarkC.RegulyT.BoucherL.BreitkreutzA.LivstoneM.OughtredR.LacknerD. H.BählerJ.WoodV.DolinskiK.TyersM.The BioGRID interaction Database: 2008 update2008361D637D6402-s2.0-3854917360610.1093/nar/gkm1001HsuC. N.LaiJ. M.LiuC. H.TsengH. H.LinC. Y.LinK. T.YehH. H.SungT. Y.HsuW. L.SuL. J.LeeS. A.ChenC. H.LeeG. C.LeeD. T.ShiueY. L.YehC. W.ChangC. H.KaoC. Y.HuangC. Y. F.Detection of the inferred interaction network in hepatocellular carcinoma from EHCO (Encyclopedia of Hepatocellular Carcinoma genes Online)20078, article 662-s2.0-3474892049510.1186/1471-2105-8-66XiaK.DongD.HanJ. D. J.IntNetDB v1.0: an integrated protein-protein interaction network database generated by a probabilistic model20067, article 5082-s2.0-3384522038210.1186/1471-2105-7-508FongJ. H.Marchler-BauerA.Protein subfamily assignment using the Conserved Domain Database20081, article 1142-s2.0-5814917955810.1186/1756-0500-1-114StroganovO. V.NovikovF. N.StroylovV. S.KulkovV.ChilovG. G.Lead finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening20084812237123852-s2.0-5814913391310.1021/ci800166p