We present the results for CAPRI Round 46, the third joint CASP‐CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round comprised a total of 20 targets including 14 homo‐oligomers and 6 heterocomplexes. Eight of the homo‐oligomer targets and one heterodimer comprised proteins that could be readily modeled using templates from the Protein Data Bank, often available for the full assembly. The remaining 11 targets comprised 5 homodimers, 3 heterodimers, and two higher‐order assemblies. These were more difficult to model, as their prediction mainly involved “ab‐initio” docking of subunit models derived from distantly related templates. A total of ~30 CAPRI groups, including 9 automatic servers, submitted on average ~2000 models per target. About 17 groups participated in the CAPRI scoring rounds, offered for most targets, submitting ~170 models per target. The prediction performance, measured by the fraction of models of acceptable quality or higher submitted across all predictors groups, was very good to excellent for the nine easy targets. Poorer performance was achieved by predictors for the 11 difficult targets, with medium and high quality models submitted for only 3 of these targets. A similar performance “gap” was displayed by scorer groups, highlighting yet again the unmet challenge of modeling the conformational changes of the protein components that occur upon binding or that must be accounted for in template‐based modeling. Our analysis also indicates that residues in binding interfaces were less well predicted in this set of targets than in previous Rounds, providing useful insights for directions of future improvements.

We present the results for CAPRI Round 50, the fourth joint CASP-CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round comprised a total of twelve targets, including six dimers, three trimers, and three higher-order oligomers. Four of these were easy targets, for which good structural templates were available either for the full assembly, or for the main interfaces (of the higher-order oligomers). Eight were

Last year saw a breakthrough in protein structure prediction, where the AlphaFold2 method showed a substantial improvement in the modeling accuracy. Following the software release of AlphaFold2, predicted structures by AlphaFold2 for proteins in 21 species were made publicly available via the AlphaFold Database. Here, to facilitate structural analysis and application of AlphaFold2 models, we provide the infrastructure, 3D-AF-Surfer, which allows real-time structure-based search for the AlphaFold2 models. In 3D-AF-Surfer, structures are represented with 3D Zernike descriptors (3DZD), which is a rotationally invariant, mathematical representation of 3D shapes. We developed a neural network that takes 3DZDs of proteins as input and retrieves proteins of the same fold more accurately than direct comparison of 3DZDs. Using 3D-AF-Surfer, we report structure classifications of AlphaFold2 models and discuss the correlation between confidence levels of AlphaFold2 models and intrinsic disordered regions.

Protein complexes are involved in many important processes in living cells. To understand the mechanisms of these processes, it is necessary to solve the 3D structures of the protein complexes. When protein complex structures have not yet been determined by experiment, protein-protein docking tools can be used to computationally model the structures of these complexes. Here, we present a webserver which provides access to LZerD and Multi-LZerD protein docking tools. The protocol provided by the server have performed consistently among the top in the CAPRI blind evaluation. LZerD docks pairs of structures, while Multi-LZerD can dock three or more structures simultaneously. LZerD uses a soft protein surface representation with 3D Zernike descriptors and explores the binding pose space using geometric hashing. Multi-LZerD performs multi-chain docking by combining pairwise solutions by LZerD. Both methods output full-atom docked models of the input proteins. Users can also input distance constraints between interacting or non-interacting residues as well as residues that locate at the interface or far from the interface. The webserver is equipped with a user-friendly panel that visualizes the distribution and structures of binding poses of top scoring models. The LZerD webserver is available at https://lzerd.kiharalab.org.

An increasing number of density maps of macromolecular structures, including proteins and DNA/RNA complexes, have been determined by cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM). Although lately maps at a near-atomic resolution are routinely reported, there are still substantial fractions of maps determined at intermediate or low resolutions, where extracting structure information is not trivial. Here, we report a new computational method, Emap2sec+, which identifies DNA or RNA as well as the secondary structures of proteins in cryo-EM maps of 5 to 10 Å resolution. Emap2sec+ employs the deep Residual convolutional neural network. Emap2sec+ assigns structural labels with associated probabilities at each voxel in a cryo-EM map, which will help structure modeling in an EM map. Emap2sec+ showed stable and high assignment accuracy for nucleotides in low resolution maps and improved performance for protein secondary structure assignments than its earlier version when tested on simulated and experimental maps.

This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

Proteins are natural modular objects usually composed of several domains, each domain bearing a specific function that is mediated through its surface, which is accessible to vicinal molecules. This draws attention to an understudied characteristic of protein structures: surface, that is mostly unexploited by protein structure comparison methods. In the present work, we evaluated the performance of six shape comparison methods, among which three are based on machine learning, to distinguish between 588 multi-domain proteins and to recreate the evolutionary relationships at the protein and species levels of the SCOPe database.The six groups that participated in the challenge submitted a total of 15 sets of results. We observed that the performance of all the methods significantly decreases at the species level, suggesting that shape-only protein comparison is challenging for closely related proteins. Even if the dataset is limited in size (only 588 proteins are considered whereas more than 160,0 0 0 protein structures are experimentally solved), we think that this work provides useful insights into the current shape comparison methods performance, and highlights possible limitations to large-scale applications due to the computational cost.

No abstract