Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2025

Author Spotlight: A Computational Approach to Decipher Amino Acid Preferences in Multispecific Protein-Protein Interactions
Published on: January 26, 2024
3DDPDs: describing protein dynamics for proteochemometric bioactivity prediction. A case for (mutant) G
Marina Gorostiola González1,2, Remco L van den Broek1, Thomas G M Braun1
1Division of Drug Discovery and Safety, Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract:
Proteochemometric (PCM) modelling is a powerful computational drug discovery tool used in bioactivity prediction of potential drug candidates relying on both chemical and protein information. In PCM features are computed to describe small molecules and proteins, which directly impact the quality of the predictive models. State-of-the-art protein descriptors, however, are calculated from the protein sequence and neglect the dynamic nature of proteins. This dynamic nature can be computationally simulated with molecular dynamics (MD). Here, novel 3D dynamic protein descriptors (3DDPDs) were designed to be applied in bioactivity prediction tasks with PCM models. As a test case, publicly available G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) MD data from GPCRmd was used. GPCRs are membrane-bound proteins, which are activated by hormones and neurotransmitters, and constitute an important target family for drug discovery. GPCRs exist in different conformational states that allow the transmission of diverse signals and that can be modified by ligand interactions, among other factors. To translate the MD-encoded protein dynamics two types of 3DDPDs were considered: one-hot encoded residue-specific (rs) and embedding-like protein-specific (ps) 3DDPDs. The descriptors were developed by calculating distributions of trajectory coordinates and partial charges, applying dimensionality reduction, and subsequently condensing them into vectors per residue or protein, respectively. 3DDPDs were benchmarked on several PCM tasks against state-of-the-art non-dynamic protein descriptors. Our rs- and ps3DDPDs outperformed non-dynamic descriptors in regression tasks using a temporal split and showed comparable performance with a random split and in all classification tasks. Combinations of non-dynamic descriptors with 3DDPDs did not result in increased performance. Finally, the power of 3DDPDs to capture dynamic fluctuations in mutant GPCRs was explored. The results presented here show the potential of including protein dynamic information on machine learning tasks, specifically bioactivity prediction, and open opportunities for applications in drug discovery, including oncology.
More Related Videos
10:21Author Spotlight: Streamlining Protein Target Prediction and Validation via Molecular Docking and CETSA
Published on: February 23, 2024
09:19Strategic Screening and Characterization of the Visual GPCR-mini-G Protein Signaling Complex for Successful Crystallization
Published on: March 16, 2020
Related Concept Videos
G Protein-coupled Receptors
GPCRs are also called heptahelical, 7TM, or serpentine receptors, and consist of seven (H1-H7) transmembrane alpha-helices that span the bilayer to form a cylindrical core. The transmembrane helices are connected by three extracellular loops and three...
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...
The Two-State Receptor Model
The binding affinity of a drug determines its interaction with...
Protein-protein Interfaces
Activation and Inactivation of G Proteins
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...