2022
DOI: 10.1017/qrd.2022.14
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling peptide–protein complexes: docking, simulations and machine learning

Abstract: Peptides mediate up to 40% of protein interactions, their high specificity and ability to bind in places where small molecules cannot make them potential drug candidates. However, predicting peptide-protein complexes remains more challenging than protein-protein or protein-small molecule interactions, in part due to the high flexibility peptides have. In this review we look at the advances in docking, molecular simulations, and machine learning to tackle problems related to peptides such as predicting structur… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 153 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They are not only able to maintain the stability of native states in micro- to millisecond scales but are also able to capture and identify protein folding processes, distinguish protein folding pathways, and capture disorder-to-order transitions of peptides as they bind their protein partners. There are still several limitations, such as the ability to describe intrinsically disordered peptides (IDPs), typically due to bias toward compact states, which has led to a plethora of new force fields to describe IDP systems …”
Section: Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They are not only able to maintain the stability of native states in micro- to millisecond scales but are also able to capture and identify protein folding processes, distinguish protein folding pathways, and capture disorder-to-order transitions of peptides as they bind their protein partners. There are still several limitations, such as the ability to describe intrinsically disordered peptides (IDPs), typically due to bias toward compact states, which has led to a plethora of new force fields to describe IDP systems …”
Section: Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are still several limitations, such as the ability to describe intrinsically disordered peptides (IDPs), typically due to bias toward compact states, 42 which has led to a plethora of new force fields to describe IDP systems. 48 For processes such as binding, the amount of sampling needed to sample multiple binding/unbinding events is the computational bottleneck. To alleviate computational cost, we used the same implicit solvent model with MELD that has previously captured the folding of IDP peptides upon binding their protein receptors.…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…AF's success rate in predicting native-like protein-peptide complex structures starting from sequences hovers around $50%-similar to the recent PatchMAN methodology. 30,40 Furthermore, AF remains unable to predict the impact of point mutations, modified amino acids, and non-standard residues. 47 In such scenarios, traditional docking tools retain their value.…”
Section: Post-af Opens New Opportunities For Developing Peptide Vs Pi...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In cases involving larger peptides, methods such as AutoDock CrankPep (ADCP), 31 Rosetta PIPER FlexPepDock (PFPD), 32 InterPep2, 33 and PatchMAN 34 have made notable strides, outperforming traditional tools within benchmark sets. However, their success in sampling diverse binding conformations often contrasts with a lower success rate in selecting the optimal docked models 30 . Despite these challenges, the presence of virtual screening (VS) peptide pipelines in prominent toolkits like Schrodinger Modeling Suites and OpenEye Docking toolkits attests to the interest in the field 35 …”
Section: Computational Drug Discovery Pipelinesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[10] Accurate modeling of these interactions, especially those with less defined secondary structure, is often tedious because of the flexibility of one of the partners. Different strategies have been developed over the years to address this challenge, [11] including the use of AlphaFold2. [3] This is crucial, since the above-mentioned protocols for distinguishing between binding and non-binding partners predominantly rely on an available structure (crystal or model) for at least one of the peptides bound to the peptide binding domain.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%