
==== Front
Nucleic Acids ResNucleic Acids ResnarnarNucleic Acids Research0305-10481362-4962Oxford University Press 1753782410.1093/nar/gkm326ArticlesFastContact: a free energy scoring tool for protein–protein complex structures Champ P. Christoph Camacho Carlos J. *Department of Computational Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA*To whom correspondence should be addressed. +4126487776ccamacho@pitt.edu7 2007 30 5 2007 30 5 2007 35 Web Server issue W556 W560 31 1 2007 23 3 2007 17 4 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)2007This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.‘FastContact’ is a server that estimates the direct electrostatic and desolvation interaction free energy between two proteins in units of kcal/mol. Users submit two proteins in PDB format, and the output is emailed back to the user in three files: one output file, and the two processed proteins. Besides the electrostatic and desolvation free energy, the server reports residue contact free energies that rapidly highlight the hotspots of the interaction and evaluates the van der Waals interaction using CHARMm. Response time is ∼1 min. The server has been successfully tested and validated, scoring refined complex structures and blind sets of docking decoys, as well as proven useful predicting protein interactions. ‘FastContact’ offers unique capabilities from biophysical insights to scoring and identifying important contacts.
==== Body
INTRODUCTION
The most intuitive decomposition of the binding free energy involves four terms (1–3): van der Waals (vdW) interactions, electrostatic, hydrophobicity and configurational entropy. The relative contribution of the changes between the bound and free states of these four terms is not the same. For stability (1), the main contributions appear to be electrostatic and desolvation interactions. For refined docked conformations, vdW interactions are expected to balance between the bound and unbound state, as they seemingly do in protein folding (1). This is good news, since it is not yet possible to readily estimate solute–solvent interactions. It should be noted, however, that solute–solute vdW has been shown to be an important consideration for complex refinement (4). Configurational entropy loss upon binding, including rotational and translational degrees of freedom, is always important, rough estimates based on crystal complexes varying between 5 and 15 kcal/mol (2,5–8). For the most part, this entropy depends on the flexibility of the unbound or free state with respect to the bound, with smaller corrections depending on the docking geometry. Since there is no robust estimate of entropy for a given protein, empirical free energy estimates, like ‘FastContact’, are always subject to an entropic correction. Hence, the server is most useful for discrimination between protein–protein docked complexes, and, more generally, for identifying energetically important contacts at the interface.

‘FastContact’, originally published in (9,10) rapidly estimates the electrostatic and desolvation component of the free energy based on a classic distance dependent dielectric 4r (11) and an empirical contact potential for the desolvation contribution (7) developed using a database of crystal (no complexes) structures from the PDB. Because of the pairwise nature of the empirical interactions, ‘FastContact’ is also able to report the contribution of individual residues and pairs of residues to the free energy. The latter should prove useful for site-directed mutagenesis studies since rankings of these interactions consistently identify the hot spots in the interface.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ALGORITHM
The code behind the server was written in Fortran 77 and the server itself was written in PHP. ‘FastContact’ performs a fast computational estimate of the binding free energy between two proteins based on atomic pairwise interactions:
Electrostatic energy: the standard intermolecular Coulomb electrostatic potential with a distant-dependent dielectric constant equal to 4r, enforcing a minimum atom-to-atom distance separation equal to the sum of their corresponding vdW radii to avoid artificial overlaps.

Desolvation free energy: knowledge-based contact potential that accounts for hypdophobic interactions, self-energy change upon desolvation of charged and polar atom groups and side-chain entropy loss.

vdW energy: the standard 6–12 Lennard–Jones potential is evaluated using the program CHARMm (12) as part of the optimization of polar Hydrogens and overlaps.



The first two values (i–ii) can be used to calculate the overall free energy of the protein–protein interactions, assuming solute and/or solvent vdW cancellation between the bound and free proteins, and a correction factor for the configurational entropy loss. The application uses the definition of the atomic composition of each amino acid consistent with CHARMm19 parameters.

USING THE FASTCONTACT SERVER
Required user-input information
Figure 1 shows a snapshot of the input page. The user uploads two Protein Data Bank (PDB) format files (13), one ‘receptor’ and one ‘ligand’, along with their email address. The web server currently makes no distinction between chains; it simply reads in each line in the PDB file starting with an ‘ATOM’ field. The maximum number of residues is limited to 1500. The email address is where the output/results will be sent (as a file attachment). Hydrogen bonds and missing atoms are built and optimized on the uploaded structures using the molecular software CHARMm.
Figure 1. Snapshot of input page.



Optional parameters
Range of desolvation interaction
The default range is 6 Å, such that the potential smoothly goes to zero between 5 and 7 Å. This range is suggested for refined models, without overlaps and relatively snuggly fit interfaces, e.g. (4,10). The user has the option of changing the range to 9 Å, approaching zero between 8 and 10 Å. This modality is suggested for encounter complexes, e.g. (14,15) for a rigid body docking validation.

Minimization
The default setting for Hydrogen bond optimization and removal of minimal overlaps prescribes a short 3 × 20 ABNR minimization steps with fixed backbone using the program CHARMm and the PARAM19 residue topology file (RTF). However, the user is free to change this setting to a full atom minimization. This setting will work for single chains only and no gaps.

Patch end terminals with –NH3 + and –COOH
By default, the end terminal residues will be patched by CHARMm. In case the end terminals are missing from the structure, the user has the option of turning the patching feature off.

Output format and explanation
The results from a ‘FastContact’ server run are returned to the user via email as a file attachment (with a normal response time of ∼1 min). The attached file is a gzipped archive (.tar.gz) containing three results files: (i) the main results file (‘output.txt’); and, the processed (including H-bonds) and renumbered (ii) receptor PDB file (‘protein1’) and (iii) the ligand PDB file (‘protein2’). All of the files are prefixed with the user name (email prefix) and timestamp of the server run for easy reference.

The main source of errors in the output file relates with the format of the input PDB files. For instance, columns usage must strictly follow the PDB standards, and ATOM keyword must describe only protein amino acids. The server cannot minimize the backbone of sequences with gaps, and missing heavy atoms are sometimes not able to be reconstructed by the server. If the server detects an error, it will report a message with possible problems and suggestions.

The main results file (‘output.txt’) returns two components of a free energy function, electrostatic energy and desolvation free energy, and evaluates the solute vdW energy using CHARMm. The latter is sometimes useful to compare between different models (16), but here it is given only as a reference since it is not used in the analysis of contacts. Often vdW energies larger than about −500 kcal/mol suggest structural overlaps. Although ‘FastContact’ smoothes the potentials to tolerate some limited overlaps, these are, in general, detrimental to the quality of the computational estimates. Figure 2 shows the summary energy output and part of the contact analysis, for the barnase–barstar complex 1BRS. We should caution that, when submitting co-crystallized receptor and ligand structures, the automated minimization implemented in the server leads to an over optimization of the electrostatic contacts of ∼10–20% (5). The reason is because the direct electrostatic term used in the server does not have an angular dependence for Hydrogen bonds. Hence, these interactions tend to ‘double-dip’. This effect is compensated when scoring unbound models that always have some built in frustration due to the less optimal backbone and side chain conformations.
Figure 2. Output page. It includes a summary of electrostatics, desolvation and vdW energies, followed by a list of the 20 most attractive and 20 most repulsive residues and contacts for the electrostatic, desolvation, and the sum of these two components that correlates with the binding free energy. For modeling, the repulsive information is sometimes useful as an indication of a wrong structural motif.



DISCUSSION
Critical assessment of protein interactions (CAPRI)
The method implemented in ‘FastContact’ has been successfully applied in the CAPRI experiment both as a free energy filtering procedure of the ‘ClusPro’ server (14) that predicts protein complexes and in protein–protein refinement (4) (using a 9 and 6 Å desolvation range, respectively). ‘FastContact’ has been instrumental in the success of our group in blind predictions (17,18). In rounds 1 and 2 of CAPRI, Camacho and Gatchell (19) produced some of the best model structures, appropriately distinguishing between near-native and false positive structures for three targets. In rounds 3–5, the automated server ‘ClusPro’ (the only server participating in CAPRI) predicted good models for 5 targets (15), while our manual predictions resulted in good predictions for 6 targets (20) (missing the 3 targets that had a significant structural rearrangement upon binding).

The robustness of our method was further supported by the analysis of the full set of models submitted for CAPRI (rounds 3–5) for the 6 targets that did not undergo a large structural rearrangement upon binding (18). For these targets, we showed that ‘FastContact’ was able to discriminate near-native predictions from docked conformations far from the binding site for 5 of the targets (10), and for all but one of the manual predictions submitted to CAPRI. For instance, Figure 3 shows the re-scoring of models submitted for targets 8 and 12 by 13 different groups around the world. In all cases, ‘FastContact’ correctly identified the near-native conformation, even when the modeler failed to do so.
Figure 3. Examples of ‘FastContact’ scoring for a subset of high quality docked models from eight groups for targets 8 and 12 of CAPRI rounds 3–5, from http://capri.ebi.ac.uk/. For each of these targets, we run the models in our server and re-rank the models accordingly. In all cases, the server was able to correctly rank a low RMSD model as the one with the lowest free energy score. For comparison, we also marked with a diamond symbol the model ranked number 1 by the modeler (23–33). (A) target 8; (B) target 12. For a complete analysis of all models please see reference (10).



By splitting the free energy between electrostatics and desolvation, ‘Fastcontact’ also provides immediate insights into the nature of the binding interactions. Namely, negative desolvation is associated with a hydrophobic pocket at the binding site, whereas positive desolvation characterizes mostly polar interfaces. This is important since sometimes electrostatic or desolvation alone could lead to better discrimination than the combination of the two (21,22). The latter is, of course, due to the intrinsic limitations of empirical free energies. In particular, reliable estimates for solvent and entropic interactions are not yet available.

OTHER SERVERS
We are aware of only one server that estimate binding free energies of complex structures: http://sparks.informatics.iupui.edu/czhang/complex.html by the Zhou Lab (8). The server returns a single binding free energy estimate in kcal/mol that was shown to correlate with experimental values (±1.8 kcal/mol) for some 69 crystal structures.

AVAILABILITY
The web server is available freely and without registration at: http://structure.pitt.edu/servers/fastcontact/

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The ‘FastContact’ Server has been thoroughly tested by over 500 runs from users all over the world. We are grateful to the many people around the world who tested our server and provided constructive feedback. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. MCB-0444291. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by NSF.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.
==== Refs
REFERENCES
1 Bueno M  Camacho CJ  Sancho J   SIMPLE estimate of the free energy change due to aliphatic mutations: superior predictions based on first principles Proteins 2007 (in press) 
2 Novotny J  Bruccoleri RE  Saul FA   On the attribution of binding energy in antigen-antibody complexes McPC 603, D1.3, and HyHEL-5 Biochemistry 1989 28 4735 4749 2475171 
3 Vajda S  Weng Z  DeLisi C   Extracting hydrophobicity parameters from solute partition and protein mutation/unfolding experiments Protein Eng 1995 8 1081 1092 8819974 
4 Camacho CJ  Vajda S   Protein docking along smooth association pathways Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2001 98 10636 10641 11517309 
5 Kimura SR  Brower RC  Vajda S  Camacho CJ   Dynamical view of the positions of key side chains in protein-protein recognition Biophys. J 2001 80 635 642 11159432 
6 Vajda S  Weng Z  Rosenfeld R  DeLisi C   Effect of conformational flexibility and solvation on receptor-ligand binding free energies Biochemistry 1994 33 13977 13988 7947806 
7 Zhang C  Vasmatzis G  Cornette JL  DeLisi C   Determination of atomic desolvation energies from the structures of crystallized proteins J. Mol. Biol 1997 267 707 726 9126848 
8 Liu S  Zhang C  Zhou H  Zhou Y   A physical reference state unifies the structure-derived potential of mean force for protein folding and binding Proteins 2004 56 93 101 15162489 
9 Camacho CJ  Zhang C   FastContact: rapid estimate of contact and binding free energies Bioinformatics 2005 21 2534 2536 15713734 
10 Camacho CJ  Ma H  Champ PC   Scoring a diverse set of high-quality docked conformations: a metascore based on electrostatic and desolvation interactions Proteins 2006 63 868 877 16506242 
11 Pickersgill RW   A rapid method of calculating charge-charge interaction energies in proteins Protein Eng 1988 2 247 248 3237687 
12 Brooks BR  Bruccoleri RE  Olafson BD  States DJ  Karplus M   CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations J. Comput. Chem 1983 4 187 217 
13 Berman H  Henrick K  Nakamura H  Markley JL   The worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB): ensuring a single, uniform archive of PDB data Nucleic Acids Res 2007 35 D301 D303 17142228 
14 Comeau SR  Gatchell DW  Vajda S  Camacho CJ   ClusPro: a fully automated algorithm for protein-protein docking Nucleic Acids Res 2004 32 W96 W99 15215358 
15 Comeau SR  Vajda S  Camacho CJ   Performance of the first protein docking server ClusPro in CAPRI rounds 3-5 Proteins 2005 60 239 244 15981265 
16 Camacho CJ  Gatchell DW  Kimura SR  Vajda S   Scoring docked conformations generated by rigid-body protein-protein docking Proteins 2000 40 525 537 10861944 
17 Mendez R  Leplae R  De ML  Wodak SJ   Assessment of blind predictions of protein-protein interactions: current status of docking methods Proteins 2003 52 51 67 12784368 
18 Mendez R  Leplae R  Lensink MF  Wodak SJ   Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3-5 shows progress in docking procedures Proteins 2005 60 150 169 15981261 
19 Camacho CJ  Gatchell DW   Successful discrimination of protein interactions Proteins 2003 52 92 97 12784373 
20 Camacho CJ   Modeling side-chains using molecular dynamics improve recognition of binding region in CAPRI targets Proteins 2005 60 245 251 15981253 
21 Camacho CJ  Weng Z  Vajda S  DeLisi C   Free energy landscapes of encounter complexes in protein-protein association Biophys. J 1999 76 1166 1178 10049302 
22 Comeau SR  Gatchell DW  Vajda S  Camacho CJ   ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes Bioinformatics 2004 20 45 50 14693807 
23 Tress M  de JD  Grana O  Gomez MJ  Gomez-Puertas P  Gonzalez JM  Lopez G  Valencia A   Scoring docking models with evolutionary information Proteins 2005 60 275 280 15981273 
24 Mustard D  Ritchie DW   Docking essential dynamics eigenstructures Proteins 2005 60 269 274 15981272 
25 Carter P  Lesk VI  Islam SA  Sternberg MJ   Protein-protein docking using 3D-Dock in rounds 3, 4, and 5 of CAPRI Proteins 2005 60 281 288 15981271 
26 Zacharias M   ATTRACT: protein-protein docking in CAPRI using a reduced protein model Proteins 2005 60 252 256 15981270 
27 Fernandez-Recio J  Abagyan R  Totrov M   Improving CAPRI predictions: optimized desolvation for rigid-body docking Proteins 2005 60 308 313 15981266 
28 Daily MD  Masica D  Sivasubramanian A  Somarouthu S  Gray JJ   CAPRI rounds 3-5 reveal promising successes and future challenges for RosettaDock Proteins 2005 60 181 186 15981262 
29 Smith GR  Fitzjohn PW  Page CS  Bates PA   Incorporation of flexibility into rigid-body docking: applications in rounds 3-5 of CAPRI Proteins 2005 60 263 268 15981258 
30 Zhang C  Liu S  Zhou Y   Docking prediction using biological information, ZDOCK sampling technique, and clustering guided by the DFIRE statistical energy function Proteins 2005 60 314 318 15981255 
31 Inbar Y  Schneidman-Duhovny D  Halperin I  Oron A  Nussinov R  Wolfson HJ   Approaching the CAPRI challenge with an efficient geometry-based docking Proteins 2005 60 217 223 15981251 
32 Schueler-Furman O  Wang C  Baker D   Progress in protein-protein docking: atomic resolution predictions in the CAPRI experiment using RosettaDock with an improved treatment of side-chain flexibility Proteins 2005 60 187 194 15981249 
33 Law D  Hotchko M  Ten EL   Progress in computation and amide hydrogen exchange for prediction of protein-protein complexes Proteins 2005 60 302 307 15981246

