Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Prediction of the structure of a receptor–protein complex using a binary docking method

Abstract

TO validate procedures of rational drug design, it is important to develop computational methods that predict binding sites between a protein and a ligand molecule. Many small molecules have been tested using such programs, but examination of protein–protein and peptide–protein interactions has been sparse. We were able to test such applications once the structures of both the maltosebinding protein1 (MBP) and the ligand-binding domain of the aspartate receptor2, which binds MBP, became available. Here we predict the binding site of MBP to its receptor using a 'binary docking' technique in which two MBP octapeptide sequences containing mutations that eliminate maltose chemotaxis are independently docked to the receptor. The peptides in the docked solutions superimpose on their original positions in the structure of MBP and allow the formation of an MBP–receptor complex. The consistency of the computational and biological results supports this approach for predicting protein–protein and peptide–protein interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Spurlino, J. C., Lu, G.-Y. & Quiocho, F. A. J. biol. Chem. 266 (8), 5202–5219 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Milburn, M. V. et al. Science 254, 1342–1347 (1991).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Manson, M. D. & Kossmann, M. J. Bact. 165, 34–40 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kossmann, M., Wolff, C. & Manson, M. D. J. Bact. 170, 4516–4521 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gardina, P., Conway, C., Kossman, M. & Manson, M. D. J. Bact. 174, 1528–1526 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goodsell, D. & Olson, A. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 8, 195–202 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mowbray, S. L. & Koshland, D. E. Jr Cell 50, 171–180 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Falke, J. J. & Koshland, D. E. Jr Science 237, 1596–1600 (1987).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Milligan, D. & Koshland, D. E. Jr Science 254, 1651–1654 (1991).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D. Jr & Vecchi, M. P. Science 220, 671–680 (1983).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gasteiger, J. & Marsili, M. Tetrahedron Lett. 34, 3181–3184 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Goodford, P. J. J. med. Chem. 28, 849–857 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stoddard, B., Koshland, D. Prediction of the structure of a receptor–protein complex using a binary docking method. Nature 358, 774–776 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1038/358774a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/358774a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing