Traditional research means, such as in vitro and in vivo models, have consistently been used by scientists to test hypotheses in biochemistry. Computational (in silico) methods have been increasingly devised and applied to testing and hypothesis development in biochemistry over the last decade. The aim of in silico methods is to analyze the quantitative aspects of scientific (big) data, whether these are stored in databases for large data or generated with the use of sophisticated modeling and simulation tools; to gain a fundamental understanding of numerous biochemical processes related, in particular, to large biological macromolecules by applying computational means to big biological data sets, and by computing biological system behavior. Computational methods used in biochemistry studies include proteomics-based bioinformatics, genome-wide mapping of protein-DNA interaction, as well as high-throughput mapping of the protein-protein interaction networks. Some of the vastly used molecular modeling and simulation techniques are Monte Carlo and Langevin (stochastic, Brownian) dynamics, statistical thermodynamics, molecular dynamics, continuum electrostatics, protein-ligand docking, protein-ligand affinity calculations, protein modeling techniques, and the protein folding process and enzyme action computer simulation. This paper presents a short review of two important methods used in the studies of biochemistry - protein-ligand docking and the prediction of protein-protein interaction networks.
References
1.
Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. 2002;47(4):409–43.
2.
Ben-Hur A, Ong CS, Sonnenburg S, Schölkopf B, Rätsch G. Support Vector Machines and Kernels for Computational Biology. PLoS Computational Biology. 4(10):e1000173.
3.
Rashid M, Ramasamy S, P.S. Raghava G. A Simple Approach for Predicting Protein-Protein Interactions. Current Protein & Peptide Science. 2010;11(7):589–600.
4.
Chatterjee P, Basu S, Kundu M, Nasipuri M, Plewczynski D. PPI_SVM: Prediction of protein-protein interactions using machine learning, domain-domain affinities and frequency tables. Cellular and Molecular Biology Letters. 2011;16(2).
5.
Zhang M, Su Q, Lu Y, Zhao M, Niu B. Application of Machine Learning Approaches for Protein-protein Interactions Prediction. Medicinal Chemistry. 2017;13(6).
6.
Zhang L, Yu G, Xia D, Wang J. Protein–protein interactions prediction based on ensemble deep neural networks. Neurocomputing. 2019;324:10–9.
7.
Li H, Gong XJ, Yu H, Zhou C. Deep Neural Network Based Predictions of Protein Interactions Using Primary Sequences. Molecules. 23(8):1923.
8.
Lin X, Chen X. Heterogeneous data integration by tree‐augmented naïve <scp>B</scp>ayes for protein–protein interactions prediction. PROTEOMICS. 2013;13(2):261–8.
9.
Thuy Phan TT, Ohkawa T. Protein-protein interaction extraction with feature selection by evaluating contribution levels of groups consisting of related features. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016;17(S7).
10.
Marini S, Xu Q, Yang Q. In Silico Protein-Protein Interaction Prediction with Sequence Alignment and Classifier Stacking. Current Protein & Peptide Science. 2011;12(7):614–20.
11.
Jia J, Xiao X, Liu B. Prediction of Protein–Protein Interactions with Physicochemical Descriptors and Wavelet Transform via Random Forests. SLAS Technology. 2016;21(3):368–77.
12.
Liu W, Guo Y, Luo J, Zhong Y, Yang X, Pu X, et al. Prediction of kinase-specific phosphorylational interactions using random forest. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems. 2013;126:117–22.
13.
Shen J, Zhang J, Luo X, Zhu W, Yu K, Chen K, et al. Predicting protein–protein interactions based only on sequences information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007;104(11):4337–41.
14.
Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, Bajorath J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2004;3(11):935–49.
15.
Veselinović JB, Kocić GM, Pavic A, Nikodinovic-Runic J, Senerovic L, Nikolić GM, et al. Selected 4-phenyl hydroxycoumarins: In vitro cytotoxicity, teratogenic effect on zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos and molecular docking study. Chemico-Biological Interactions. 2015;231:10–7.
16.
Gohlke H, Klebe G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew Chem Int Ed Eng. 2002;41(15):2644–76.
17.
Brooijmans N, Kuntz ID. Molecular Recognition and Docking Algorithms. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure. 2003;32(1):335–73.
18.
Thomsen R, Christensen MH. MolDock: A New Technique for High-Accuracy Molecular Docking. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 2006;49(11):3315–21.
19.
Ničković VP, Mitić NR, Krdžić BD, Krdžić JD, Nikolić GR, Vasić MZ, et al. Design and development of novel therapeutics for brucellosis treatment based on carbonic anhydrase inhibition. Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics. :1–10.
20.
Ćirić Zdravković S, Pavlović M, Apostlović S, Koraćević G, Šalinger Martinović S, Stanojević D, et al. Development and design of novel cardiovascular therapeutics based on Rho kinase inhibition—In silico approach. Computational Biology and Chemistry. 2019;79:55–62.
21.
Stoičkov V, Šarić S, Golubović M, Zlatanović D, Krtinić D, Dinić L, et al. Development of non-peptide ACE inhibitors as novel and potent cardiovascular therapeutics: An in silico modelling approach. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research. 2018;29(7):503–15.
22.
Zivkovic M, Zlatanovic M, Zlatanovic N, Djordjevic Jocic J, Golubović M, Veselinović AM. Development of novel therapeutics for the treatment of glaucoma based on actin-binding kinase inhibition – in silico approach. New Journal of Chemistry. 44(17):6923–31.
23.
Zivkovic M, Zlatanovic M, Zlatanovic N, Golubović M, Veselinović AM. The Application of the Combination of Monte Carlo Optimization Method based QSAR Modeling and Molecular Docking in Drug Design and Development. Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry. 2020;20(14):1389–402.
24.
Enright AJ, Iliopoulos I, Kyrpides NC, Ouzounis CA. Protein interaction maps for complete genomes based on gene fusion events. Nature. 1999;402(6757):86–90.
25.
Cicaloni V, Trezza A, Pettini F, Spiga O. Applications of in Silico Methods for Design and Development of Drugs Targeting Protein-Protein Interactions. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry. 2019;19(7):534–54.
26.
Shoemaker BA, Panchenko AR. Deciphering Protein–Protein Interactions. Part I. Experimental Techniques and Databases. PLoS Computational Biology. 3(3):e42.
27.
Shoemaker BA, Panchenko AR. Deciphering Protein–Protein Interactions. Part II. Computational Methods to Predict Protein and Domain Interaction Partners. PLoS Computational Biology. 3(4):e43.
28.
Orchard S, Kerrien S, Abbani S, Aranda B, Bhate J, Bidwell S, et al. Protein interaction data curation: the International Molecular Exchange (IMEx) consortium. Nature Methods. 2012;9(4):345–50.
29.
Zahiri J, Bozorgmehr J, Masoudi-Nejad A. Computational Prediction of Protein–Protein Interaction Networks: Algorithms and Resources. Current Genomics. 2013;14(6):397–414.
30.
Mercatelli D, Scalambra L, Triboli L, Ray F, Giorgi FM. Gene regulatory network inference resources: A practical overview. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms. 2020;1863(6):194430.
31.
Li X, Li W, Zeng M, Zheng R, Li M. Network-based methods for predicting essential genes or proteins: a survey. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2020;21(2):566–83.
32.
Koutsoukas A, Simms B, Kirchmair J, Bond PJ, Whitmore AV, Zimmer S, et al. From in silico target prediction to multi-target drug design: Current databases, methods and applications. Journal of Proteomics. 2011;74(12):2554–74.
33.
Juan D, Pazos F, Valencia A. High-confidence prediction of global interactomes based on genome-wide coevolutionary networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105(3):934–9.
34.
Valencia A, Pazos F. Computational methods for the prediction of protein interactions. Current Opinion in Structural Biology. 2002;12(3):368–73.
35.
Skrabanek L, Saini HK, Bader GD, Enright AJ. Computational Prediction of Protein–Protein Interactions. Molecular Biotechnology. 2008;38(1):1–17.
36.
Lambrinidis G, Vallianatou T, Tsantili-Kakoulidou A. In vitro, in silico and integrated strategies for the estimation of plasma protein binding. A review. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2015;86:27–45.
37.
Aloy P, Russell RB. Interrogating protein interaction networks through structural biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2002;99(9):5896–901.
38.
Hue M, Riffle M, Vert JP, Noble WS. Large-scale prediction of protein-protein interactions from structures. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11(1).
39.
Li M, Lu Y, Wang J, Wu FX, Pan Y. A Topology Potential-Based Method for Identifying Essential Proteins from PPI Networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics. 2015;12(2):372–83.
40.
Lei X, Yang X, Fujita H. Random walk based method to identify essential proteins by integrating network topology and biological characteristics. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2019;167:53–67.
41.
Luo J, Kuang L. A new method for predicting essential proteins based on dynamic network topology and complex information. Computational Biology and Chemistry. 2014;52:34–42.
42.
Goldberg DS, Roth FP. Assessing experimentally derived interactions in a small world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2003;100(8):4372–6.
43.
Tikk D, Thomas P, Palaga P, Hakenberg J, Leser U. A Comprehensive Benchmark of Kernel Methods to Extract Protein–Protein Interactions from Literature. PLoS Computational Biology. 6(7):e1000837.
44.
Bui QC, Katrenko S, Sloot PMA. A hybrid approach to extract protein–protein interactions. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(2):259–65.
45.
He M, Wang Y, Li W. PPI Finder: A Mining Tool for Human Protein-Protein Interactions. PLoS ONE. 4(2):e4554.
46.
Jaeger S, Gaudan S, Leser U, Rebholz-Schuhmann D. Integrating protein-protein interactions and text mining for protein function prediction. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9(S8).
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
