Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 16, 2026

Exploring Protein-Glycan Interactions: Advances in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Published on: August 26, 2025
On the binding affinity of macromolecular interactions: daring to ask why proteins interact
Panagiotis L Kastritis1, Alexandre M J J Bonvin
1Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Faculty of Science, Chemistry, Utrecht University, , Padualaan 8, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Predicting protein-protein binding affinity from structure remains challenging. Current methods struggle with complex, flexible interactions, necessitating an integrative approach considering biology, chemistry, and physics.
Area of Science:
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
- Structural Biology
- Computational Biology
Background:
- Protein-protein interactions are crucial for cellular functions and are quantified by binding affinity, measured as the dissociation constant (Kd).
- Accurate prediction of binding affinity from protein structures is vital for drug development but remains a significant challenge.
- Existing computational methods are limited in predicting binding affinity solely from structural coordinates, especially for complex systems.
Purpose of the Study:
- To examine the theoretical and experimental limitations in deriving structure-affinity relationships for protein-protein interactions.
- To highlight the shortcomings of current approaches in predicting binding affinity from protein structures.
- To propose future directions for modeling protein-protein recognition.
Main Methods:
- Review of existing theoretical and experimental approaches for predicting protein-protein binding affinity.
- Analysis of the relationship between structural features (e.g., buried surface area) and binding affinity.
- Discussion of limitations related to complex and flexible protein interactions.
Main Results:
- Current methods fail to accurately predict binding affinity for protein-protein complexes using only structural data.
- The buried surface area is a relevant measure for rigid complexes but is insufficient for flexible ones.
- Flexible complexes likely involve significant entropic contributions that are difficult to approximate.
Conclusions:
- Deriving accurate structure-affinity relationships for protein-protein interactions faces fundamental theoretical and experimental hurdles.
- Future theoretical modeling must adopt an integrative approach, incorporating biological, chemical, and physical principles.
- Understanding and predicting binding affinity in complex biological systems requires a multidisciplinary perspective.
Related Concept Videos
Protein-protein Interfaces
Noncovalent Attractions in Biomolecules
Four types of noncovalent interactions are hydrogen bonds, van der Waals forces, ionic bonds, and hydrophobic interactions.
Hydrogen bonding results from the electrostatic attraction of a hydrogen atom covalently bonded to a strong-electronegative atom like oxygen,...
Noncovalent Attractions in Biomolecules
Four types of noncovalent interactions are hydrogen bonds, van der Waals forces, ionic bonds, and hydrophobic interactions.
Hydrogen bonding results from the electrostatic attraction of a hydrogen atom covalently bonded to a strong-electronegative atom like oxygen,...
Ligand Binding Sites
Protein-ligand interactions are quite specific; even though numerous potential ligands surround a cellular protein at any given time, only a particular ligand can bind to that protein. Moreover, a ligand binds only to a dedicated area on the surface of the protein, known as the...
The Equilibrium Binding Constant and Binding Strength
The Equilibrium Binding Constant and Binding Strength

