Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 3, 2026

Application of I TASSER, trRosetta, UCSF Chimera, HADDOCK server, and HEX loria for De Novo and In Silico Design of Proteins
Published on: July 8, 2025
Docking proteins and peptides under evolutionary constraints in Critical Assessment of PRediction of Interactions
Aravindan Arun Nadaradjane1, Chloé Quignot1, Seydou Traoré1
1Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell (I2BC), CEA, CNRS, University of Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France.
Abstract:
Computational structural prediction of macromolecular interactions is a fundamental tool toward the global understanding of cellular processes. The Critical Assessment of PRediction of Interactions (CAPRI) community-wide experiment provides excellent opportunities for blind testing computational docking methods and includes original targets, thus widening the range of docking applications. Our participation in CAPRI rounds 38 to 45 enabled us to expand the way we include evolutionary information in structural predictions beyond our standard free docking InterEvDock pipeline. InterEvDock integrates a coarse-grained potential that accounts for interface coevolution based on joint multiple sequence alignments of two protein partners (co-alignments). However, even though such co-alignments could be built for none of the CAPRI targets in rounds 38 to 45, including host-pathogen and protein-oligosaccharide complexes and a redesigned interface, we identified multiple strategies that can be used to incorporate evolutionary constraints, which helped us to identify the most likely macromolecular binding modes. These strategies include template-based modeling where only local adjustments should be applied when query-template sequence identity is above 30% and larger perturbations are needed below this threshold; covariation-based structure prediction for individual protein partners; and the identification of evolutionarily conserved and structurally recurrent anchoring interface motifs. Overall, we submitted correct predictions among the top 5 models for 12 out of 19 interface challenges, including four High- and five Medium-quality predictions. Our top 20 models included correct predictions for three out of the five targets we missed in the top 5, including two targets for which misleading biological data led us to downgrade correct free docking models.
More Related Videos
08:49Incorporating Target Protein Structure Flexibility and Dynamics in Computational Drug Discovery Using Ensemble-Based Docking Analysis
Published on: June 20, 2025
10:33Development of Inhibitors of Protein-protein Interactions through REPLACE: Application to the Design and Development Non-ATP Competitive CDK Inhibitors
Published on: October 26, 2015
Related Concept Videos
Protein-protein Interfaces
Protein-Protein Interfaces
Conserved Binding Sites
Binding sites are often located in large pockets, and if their location on a protein’s surface is unknown, it can be predicted using various approaches. The energetic method computationally...
Protein Networks
These interactions can be represented through maps depicting protein-protein interaction networks, represented as nodes and edges. Nodes are circles that are representative of a protein,...
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...
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,...