Searching for protein–protein interaction sites and docking by the methods of molecular dynamics, grid scoring, and the pairwise interaction potential of amino acid residues



In CAPRI Rounds 1 and 2, we assumed that because there are many ionic charges that weaken electrostatic interaction forces in living cells, the hydrophobic interaction force might be important entropically. As a result of Rounds 1 and 2, the predictions for binding sites and geometric centers were acceptable, but those of the binding axes were poor, because only the largest benzene cluster was used for generating the initial docking structures. These were generated by fitting of benzene clusters formed on the surface of receptor and ligand. In CAPRI Rounds 3–5, the grid-scoring sum on the protein–protein interaction surface and the pairwise potential of the amino acid residues, which were indicated as coming easily into the protein–protein interaction regions, were used as the calculation methods, along with the smaller benzene clusters that participated in benzene cluster fitting. Good predicted models were obtained for Targets 11 and 12. When the modeled receptor proteins were superimposed on the experimental structures, the smallest ligand root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) values corresponding to the RMSD between the model and experimental structures were 6.2 Å and 7.3 Å, respectively. Proteins 2005;60:289–295. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.