@article {2015|1657,
	title = {Changes in protein structure at the interface accompanying complex formation.},
	journal = {Iucrj},
	volume = {2},
	number = {Pt 6},
	year = {2015},
	month = {nov},
	pages = {643{\textendash}652},
	publisher = {Department of Biochemistry, Bose Institute , P-1/12 CIT Scheme VIIM, Kolkata 700 054, India.},
	abstract = {Protein interactions are essential in all biological processes. The changes brought about in the structure when a free component forms a complex with another molecule need to be characterized for a proper understanding of molecular recognition as well as for the successful implementation of docking algorithms. Here, unbound (U) and bound (B) forms of protein structures from the Protein-Protein Interaction Affinity Database are compared in order to enumerate the changes that occur at the interface atoms/residues in terms of the solvent-accessible surface area (ASA), secondary structure, temperature factors (B factors) and disorder-to-order transitions. It is found that the interface atoms optimize contacts with the atoms in the partner protein, which leads to an increase in their ASA in the bound interface in the majority (69\%) of the proteins when compared with the unbound interface, and this is independent of the root-mean-square deviation between the U and B forms. Changes in secondary structure during the transition indicate a likely extension of helices and strands at the expense of turns and coils. A reduction in flexibility during complex formation is reflected in the decrease in B factors of the interface residues on going from the U form to the B form. There is, however, no distinction in flexibility between the interface and the surface in the monomeric structure, thereby highlighting the potential problem of using B factors for the prediction of binding sites in the unbound form for docking another protein. 16\% of the proteins have missing (disordered) residues in the U form which are observed (ordered) in the B form, mostly with an irregular conformation; the data set also shows differences in the composition of interface and non-interface residues in the disordered polypeptide segments as well as differences in their surface burial.},
	doi = {10.1107/S2052252515015250},
	author = {Chakravarty, Devlina and Janin, Jo{\"e}l and Charles H. Robert and Chakrabarti, Pinak}
}
@article {2011|1665,
	title = {Community-wide assessment of protein-interface modeling suggests improvements to design methodology.},
	journal = {J. Mol. Biol.},
	volume = {414},
	year = {2011},
	month = {nov},
	pages = {289{\textendash}302},
	abstract = {<p>The CAPRI (Critical Assessment of Predicted Interactions) and CASP (Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction) experiments have demonstrated the power of community-wide tests of methodology in assessing the current state of the art and spurring progress in the very challenging areas of protein docking and structure prediction. We sought to bring the power of community-wide experiments to bear on a very challenging protein design problem that provides a complementary but equally fundamental test of current understanding of protein-binding thermodynamics. We have generated a number of designed protein-protein interfaces with very favorable computed binding energies but which do not appear to be formed in experiments, suggesting that there may be important physical chemistry missing in the energy calculations. A total of 28 research groups took up the challenge of determining what is missing: we provided structures of 87 designed complexes and 120 naturally occurring complexes and asked participants to identify energetic contributions and/or structural features that distinguish between the two sets. The community found that electrostatics and solvation terms partially distinguish the designs from the natural complexes, largely due to the nonpolar character of the designed interactions. Beyond this polarity difference, the community found that the designed binding surfaces were, on average, structurally less embedded in the designed monomers, suggesting that backbone conformational rigidity at the designed surface is important for realization of the designed function. These results can be used to improve computational design strategies, but there is still much to be learned; for example, one designed complex, which does form in experiments, was classified by all metrics as a nonbinder.</p>},
	keywords = {Binding Sites, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Proteins},
	issn = {1089-8638},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jmb.2011.09.031},
	author = {Fleishman, Sarel J and Whitehead, Timothy A and Strauch, Eva-Maria and Corn, Jacob E and Qin, Sanbo and Zhou, Huan-Xiang and Mitchell, Julie C and Demerdash, Omar N A and Takeda-Shitaka, Mayuko and Terashi, Genki and Moal, Iain H and Li, Xiaofan and Bates, Paul A and Martin Zacharias and Park, Hahnbeom and Ko, Jun-su and Lee, Hasup and Seok, Chaok and Bourquard, Thomas and Bernauer, Julie and Poupon, Anne and Az{\'e}, J{\'e}r{\^o}me and Soner, Seren and Ovali, Sefik Kerem and Ozbek, Pemra and Tal, Nir Ben and Haliloglu, T{\"u}rkan and Hwang, Howook and Vreven, Thom and Pierce, Brian G and Weng, Zhiping and P{\'e}rez-Cano, Laura and Pons, Carles and Fern{\'a}ndez-Recio, Juan and Jiang, Fan and Yang, Feng and Gong, Xinqi and Cao, Libin and Xu, Xianjin and Liu, Bin and Wang, Panwen and Li, Chunhua and Wang, Cunxin and Charles H. Robert and Guharoy, Mainak and Liu, Shiyong and Huang, Yangyu and Li, Lin and Guo, Dachuan and Chen, Ying and Xiao, Yi and London, Nir and Itzhaki, Zohar and Schueler-Furman, Ora and Inbar, Yuval and Potapov, Vladimir and Cohen, Mati and Schreiber, Gideon and Tsuchiya, Yuko and Kanamori, Eiji and Standley, Daron M and Nakamura, Haruki and Kinoshita, Kengo and Driggers, Camden M and Hall, Robert G and Morgan, Jessica L and Hsu, Victor L and Zhan, Jian and Yang, Yuedong and Zhou, Yaoqi and Kastritis, Panagiotis L and Bonvin, Alexandre M J J and Zhang, Weiyi and Camacho, Carlos J and Kilambi, Krishna P and Sircar, Aroop and Gray, Jeffrey J and Ohue, Masahito and Uchikoga, Nobuyuki and Matsuzaki, Yuri and Ishida, Takashi and Akiyama, Yutaka and Khashan, Raed and Bush, Stephen and Fouches, Denis and Tropsha, Alexander and Esquivel-Rodr{\'\i}guez, Juan and Kihara, Daisuke and Stranges, P Benjamin and Jacak, Ron and Kuhlman, Brian and Huang, Sheng-You and Zou, Xiaoqin and Wodak, Shoshana J and Janin, Jo{\"e}l and Baker, David}
}
