Skip to main content
PMC home page
Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society logoLink to Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society
. 1995 May;4(5):885–899. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560040508

Monte Carlo docking with ubiquitin.

M D Cummings 1, T N Hart 1, R J Read 1
PMCID: PMC2143132  PMID: 7663344

Abstract

The development of general strategies for the performance of docking simulations is prerequisite to the exploitation of this powerful computational method. Comprehensive strategies can only be derived from docking experiences with a diverse array of biological systems, and we have chosen the ubiquitin/diubiquitin system as a learning tool for this process. Using our multiple-start Monte Carlo docking method, we have reconstructed the known structure of diubiquitin from its two halves as well as from two copies of the uncomplexed monomer. For both of these cases, our relatively simple potential function ranked the correct solution among the lowest energy configurations. In the experiments involving the ubiquitin monomer, various structural modifications were made to compensate for the lack of flexibility and for the lack of a covalent bond in the modeled interaction. Potentially flexible regions could be identified using available biochemical and structural information. A systematic conformational search ruled out the possibility that the required covalent bond could be formed in one family of low-energy configurations, which was distant from the observed dimer configuration. A variety of analyses was performed on the low-energy dockings obtained in the experiment involving structurally modified ubiquitin. Characterization of the size and chemical nature of the interface surfaces was a powerful adjunct to our potential function, enabling us to distinguish more accurately between correct and incorrect dockings. Calculations with the structure of tetraubiquitin indicated that the dimer configuration in this molecule is much less favorable than that observed in the diubiquitin structure, for a simple monomer-monomer pair. Based on the analysis of our results, we draw conclusions regarding some of the approximations involved in our simulations, the use of diverse chemical and biochemical information in experimental design and the analysis of docking results, as well as possible modifications to our docking protocol.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.5 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bacon D. J., Moult J. Docking by least-squares fitting of molecular surface patterns. J Mol Biol. 1992 Jun 5;225(3):849–858. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90405-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bass M. B., Hopkins D. F., Jaquysh W. A., Ornstein R. L. A method for determining the positions of polar hydrogens added to a protein structure that maximizes protein hydrogen bonding. Proteins. 1992 Mar;12(3):266–277. doi: 10.1002/prot.340120305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernstein F. C., Koetzle T. F., Williams G. J., Meyer E. F., Jr, Brice M. D., Rodgers J. R., Kennard O., Shimanouchi T., Tasumi M. The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol. 1977 May 25;112(3):535–542. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(77)80200-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chau V., Tobias J. W., Bachmair A., Marriott D., Ecker D. J., Gonda D. K., Varshavsky A. A multiubiquitin chain is confined to specific lysine in a targeted short-lived protein. Science. 1989 Mar 24;243(4898):1576–1583. doi: 10.1126/science.2538923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen Z., Pickart C. M. A 25-kilodalton ubiquitin carrier protein (E2) catalyzes multi-ubiquitin chain synthesis via lysine 48 of ubiquitin. J Biol Chem. 1990 Dec 15;265(35):21835–21842. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cherfils J., Bizebard T., Knossow M., Janin J. Rigid-body docking with mutant constraints of influenza hemagglutinin with antibody HC19. Proteins. 1994 Jan;18(1):8–18. doi: 10.1002/prot.340180104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cherfils J., Duquerroy S., Janin J. Protein-protein recognition analyzed by docking simulation. Proteins. 1991;11(4):271–280. doi: 10.1002/prot.340110406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cook W. J., Jeffrey L. C., Carson M., Chen Z., Pickart C. M. Structure of a diubiquitin conjugate and a model for interaction with ubiquitin conjugating enzyme (E2). J Biol Chem. 1992 Aug 15;267(23):16467–16471. doi: 10.2210/pdb1aar/pdb. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cook W. J., Jeffrey L. C., Kasperek E., Pickart C. M. Structure of tetraubiquitin shows how multiubiquitin chains can be formed. J Mol Biol. 1994 Feb 18;236(2):601–609. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1994.1169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cook W. J., Jeffrey L. C., Sullivan M. L., Vierstra R. D. Three-dimensional structure of a ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme (E2). J Biol Chem. 1992 Jul 25;267(21):15116–15121. doi: 10.2210/pdb1aak/pdb. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Deveraux Q., Ustrell V., Pickart C., Rechsteiner M. A 26 S protease subunit that binds ubiquitin conjugates. J Biol Chem. 1994 Mar 11;269(10):7059–7061. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ecker D. J., Butt T. R., Marsh J., Sternberg E. J., Margolis N., Monia B. P., Jonnalagadda S., Khan M. I., Weber P. L., Mueller L. Gene synthesis, expression, structures, and functional activities of site-specific mutants of ubiquitin. J Biol Chem. 1987 Oct 15;262(29):14213–14221. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eisenberg D., McLachlan A. D. Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature. 1986 Jan 16;319(6050):199–203. doi: 10.1038/319199a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans S. V. SETOR: hardware-lighted three-dimensional solid model representations of macromolecules. J Mol Graph. 1993 Jun;11(2):134-8, 127-8. doi: 10.1016/0263-7855(93)87009-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Finley D., Chau V. Ubiquitination. Annu Rev Cell Biol. 1991;7:25–69. doi: 10.1146/annurev.cb.07.110191.000325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodsell D. S., Olson A. J. Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins. 1990;8(3):195–202. doi: 10.1002/prot.340080302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gregori L., Marriott D., West C. M., Chau V. Specific recognition of calmodulin from Dictyostelium discoideum by the ATP, ubiquitin-dependent degradative pathway. J Biol Chem. 1985 May 10;260(9):5232–5235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gregori L., Poosch M. S., Cousins G., Chau V. A uniform isopeptide-linked multiubiquitin chain is sufficient to target substrate for degradation in ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis. J Biol Chem. 1990 May 25;265(15):8354–8357. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hart T. N., Read R. J. A multiple-start Monte Carlo docking method. Proteins. 1992 Jul;13(3):206–222. doi: 10.1002/prot.340130304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hershko A., Ciechanover A. The ubiquitin system for protein degradation. Annu Rev Biochem. 1992;61:761–807. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.61.070192.003553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hershko A., Heller H. Occurrence of a polyubiquitin structure in ubiquitin-protein conjugates. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1985 May 16;128(3):1079–1086. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(85)91050-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hershko A. The ubiquitin pathway for protein degradation. Trends Biochem Sci. 1991 Jul;16(7):265–268. doi: 10.1016/0968-0004(91)90101-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hill C. P., Johnston N. L., Cohen R. E. Crystal structure of a ubiquitin-dependent degradation substrate: a three-disulfide form of lysozyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 May 1;90(9):4136–4140. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.9.4136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hochstrasser M. Ubiquitin and intracellular protein degradation. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1992 Dec;4(6):1024–1031. doi: 10.1016/0955-0674(92)90135-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Janin J., Miller S., Chothia C. Surface, subunit interfaces and interior of oligomeric proteins. J Mol Biol. 1988 Nov 5;204(1):155–164. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(88)90606-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jentsch S. The ubiquitin-conjugation system. Annu Rev Genet. 1992;26:179–207. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.26.120192.001143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Komine S., Yoshida K., Yamashita H., Masaki Z. Voiding dysfunction in patients with human T-lymphotropic virus type-1-associated myelopathy (HAM). Paraplegia. 1989 Jun;27(3):217–221. doi: 10.1038/sc.1989.32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Leach A. R. Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility. J Mol Biol. 1994 Jan 7;235(1):345–356. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(05)80038-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller S. The structure of interfaces between subunits of dimeric and tetrameric proteins. Protein Eng. 1989 Nov;3(2):77–83. doi: 10.1093/protein/3.2.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ozkaynak E., Finley D., Varshavsky A. The yeast ubiquitin gene: head-to-tail repeats encoding a polyubiquitin precursor protein. Nature. 1984 Dec 13;312(5995):663–666. doi: 10.1038/312663a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rao S. T., Rossmann M. G. Comparison of super-secondary structures in proteins. J Mol Biol. 1973 May 15;76(2):241–256. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(73)90388-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rechsteiner M. Natural substrates of the ubiquitin proteolytic pathway. Cell. 1991 Aug 23;66(4):615–618. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90104-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Richmond T. J. Solvent accessible surface area and excluded volume in proteins. Analytical equations for overlapping spheres and implications for the hydrophobic effect. J Mol Biol. 1984 Sep 5;178(1):63–89. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(84)90231-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Shoichet B. K., Kuntz I. D. Protein docking and complementarity. J Mol Biol. 1991 Sep 5;221(1):327–346. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(91)80222-g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Silver E. T., Gwozd T. J., Ptak C., Goebl M., Ellison M. J. A chimeric ubiquitin conjugating enzyme that combines the cell cycle properties of CDC34 (UBC3) and the DNA repair properties of RAD6 (UBC2): implications for the structure, function and evolution of the E2s. EMBO J. 1992 Aug;11(8):3091–3098. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1992.tb05381.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sokolik C. W., Cohen R. E. Ubiquitin conjugation to cytochromes c. Structure of the yeast iso-1 conjugate and possible recognition determinants. J Biol Chem. 1992 Jan 15;267(2):1067–1071. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Stoddard B. L., Koshland D. E., Jr Prediction of the structure of a receptor-protein complex using a binary docking method. Nature. 1992 Aug 27;358(6389):774–776. doi: 10.1038/358774a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Varshavsky A. The N-end rule. Cell. 1992 May 29;69(5):725–735. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90285-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Vijay-Kumar S., Bugg C. E., Cook W. J. Structure of ubiquitin refined at 1.8 A resolution. J Mol Biol. 1987 Apr 5;194(3):531–544. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(87)90679-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Wilkinson K. D., Cox M. J., O'Connor L. B., Shapira R. Structure and activities of a variant ubiquitin sequence from bakers' yeast. Biochemistry. 1986 Sep 9;25(18):4999–5004. doi: 10.1021/bi00366a005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society are provided here courtesy of The Protein Society

RESOURCES