@article {2013|1976,
	title = {Reassessing buried surface areas in protein-protein complexes.},
	journal = {Protein Sci.},
	volume = {22},
	year = {2013},
	month = {aug},
	pages = {1453{\textendash}57},
	abstract = {<p>The buried surface area (BSA), which measures the size of the interface in a protein-protein complex may differ from the accessible surface area (ASA) lost upon association (which we call DSA), if conformation changes take place. To evaluate the DSA, we measure the ASA of the interface atoms in the bound and unbound states of the components of 144 protein-protein complexes taken from the Protein-Protein Interaction Affinity Database of Kastritis et al. (2011). We observe differences exceeding 20\%, and a systematic bias in the distribution. On average, the ASA calculated in the bound state of the components is 3.3\% greater than in their unbound state, and the BSA, 7\% greater than the DSA. The bias is observed even in complexes where the conformation changes are small. An examination of the bound and unbound structures points to a possible origin: local movements optimize contacts with the other component at the cost of internal contacts, and presumably also the binding free energy.</p>},
	keywords = {binding free energy, conformation changes, protein-protein interaction, solvent accessible surface},
	doi = {10.1002/pro.2330},
	author = {Chakravarty, Devlina and Guharoy, Mainak and Robert, Charles H. and Chakrabarti, Pinak and Janin, Jo{\"e}l}
}
@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}
}
