The ZDOCK server is freely available to all academic and non-profit users at: http://zdock.umassmed.edu. No registration is required.

We present version 3.0 of our publicly available protein-protein docking benchmark. This update includes 40 new test cases, representing a 48% increase from Benchmark 2.0. For all of the new cases, the crystal structures of both binding partners are available. As with Benchmark 2.0, SCOP 1 (Structural Classification of Proteins) was used to remove redundant test cases. The 124 unboundunbound test cases in Benchmark 3.0 are classified into 88 rigid-body cases, 19 medium difficulty cases, and 17 difficult cases, based on the degree of conformational change at the interface upon complex formation. In addition to providing the community with more test cases for evaluating docking methods, the expansion of Benchmark 3.0 will facilitate the development of new algorithms that require a large number of training examples. Benchmark 3.0 is available to the public at

We have assembled a nonredundant set of 144 protein-protein complexes that have high-resolution structures available for both the complexes and their unbound components, and for which dissociation constants have been measured by biophysical methods. The set is diverse in terms of the biological functions it represents, with complexes that involve G-proteins and receptor extracellular domains, as well as antigen/antibody, enzyme/inhibitor, and enzyme/ substrate complexes. It is also diverse in terms of the partners' affinity for each other, with K d ranging between 10 25 and 10 214 M. Nine pairs of entries represent closely related complexes that have a similar structure, but a very different affinity, each pair comprising a cognate and a noncognate assembly. The unbound structures of the component proteins being available, conformation changes can be assessed. They are significant in most of the complexes, and large movements or disorder-to-order transitions are frequently observed. The set may be used to benchmark biophysical models aiming to relate affinity to structure in protein-protein interactions, taking into account the reactants and the conformation changes that accompany the association reaction, instead of just the final product.

We present version 3.0 of our publicly available protein-protein docking benchmark. This update includes 40 new test cases, representing a 48% increase from Benchmark 2.0. For all of the new cases, the crystal structures of both binding partners are available. As with Benchmark 2.0, SCOP1 (Structural Classification of Proteins) was used to remove redundant test cases. The 124 unbound-unbound test cases in Benchmark 3.0 are classified into 88 rigid-body cases, 19 medium difficulty cases, and 17 difficult cases, based on the degree of conformational change at the interface upon complex formation. In addition to providing the community with more test cases for evaluating docking methods, the expansion of Benchmark 3.0 will facilitate the development of new algorithms that require a large number of training examples. Benchmark 3.0 is available to the public at http://zlab.bu.edu/benchmark.

The CAPRI and CASP prediction experiments have demonstrated the power of community wide tests of methodology in assessing the current state of the art and spurring progress in the very challenging areas of protein docking and structure prediction. We sought to bring the power of community wide experiments to bear on a very challenging protein design problem that provides a complementary but equally fundamental test of current understanding of protein-binding thermodynamics. We have generated a number of designed protein-protein interfaces with very favorable computed binding energies but which do not appear to be formed in experiments, suggesting there may be important physical chemistry missing in the energy calculations. 28 research groups took up the challenge of determining what is missing: we provided structures of 87 designed complexes and 120 naturally occurring complexes and asked participants to identify energetic contributions and/or structural features that distinguish between the two sets. The community found that electrostatics and solvation terms partially distinguish the designs from the natural complexes, largely due to the non-polar character of the designed interactions. Beyond this polarity difference, the community found that the designed binding surfaces were on average structurally less embedded in the designed monomers, suggesting that backbone conformational rigidity at the designed surface is important for realization of the designed function. These results can be used to improve computational design strategies, but there is still much to be learned; for example, one designed complex, which does form in experiments, was classified by all metrics as a non-binder.

Community-wide blind prediction experiments such as CAPRI and CASP provide an objective measure of the current state of predictive methodology. Here we describe a community-wide assessment of methods to predict the effects of mutations on protein-protein interactions. Twenty-two groups predicted the effects of comprehensive saturation mutagenesis for two designed influenza hemagglutinin binders and the results were compared with experimental yeast display enrichment data obtained using deep sequencing. The most successful methods explicitly considered the effects of mutation on monomer stability in addition to binding affinity, carried out explicit side chain sampling and backbone relaxation, and evaluated packing, electrostatic and solvation effects, and correctly identified around a third of the beneficial mutations. Much room for improvement remains for even the best techniques, and large-scale fitness landscapes should continue to provide an excellent test bed for continued evaluation of methodological improvement.

Most scoring functions for protein-protein docking algorithms are either atom-based or residue-based, with the former being able to produce higher quality structures and latter more tolerant to conformational changes upon binding. Earlier, we developed the ZRANK algorithm for reranking docking predictions, with a scoring function that contained only atom-based terms. Here we combine ZRANK's atom-based potentials with five residue-based potentials published by other labs, as well as an atom-based potential IFACE that we published after ZRANK. We simultaneously optimized the weights for selected combinations of terms in the scoring function, using decoys generated with the protein-protein docking algorithm ZDOCK. We performed rigorous cross validation of the combinations using 96 test cases from a docking benchmark. Judged by the integrative success rate of making 1000 predictions per complex, addition of IFACE and the best residue-based pair potential reduced the number of cases without a correct prediction by 38 and 27% relative to ZDOCK and ZRANK, respectively. Thus combination of residue-based and atombased potentials into a scoring function can improve performance for protein-protein docking. The resulting scoring function is called IRAD (integration of residue-and atom-based potentials for docking) and is available at http://zlab.umassmed.edu.

We present an energy function for predicting binding free energies of protein-protein complexes, using the three-dimensional structures of the complex and unbound proteins as input. Our function is a linear combination of nine terms and achieves a correlation coefficient of 0.63 with experimental measurements when tested on a benchmark of 144 complexes using leave-oneout cross validation. Although we systematically tested both atomic and residue-based scoring functions, the selected function is dominated by residue-based terms. Our function is stable for subsets of the benchmark stratified by experimental pH and extent of conformational change upon complex formation, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.61 to 0.66.