Interpretable Protein-DNA Interactions Captured by Structure-Sequence Optimization
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This valuable work presents an interpretable protein-DNA Energy Associative (IDEA) model for predicting binding sites and affinities of DNA-binding proteins. The study provides a detailed description of the method, making it reproducible. However, the generalizability of the prediction model presents certain concerns, and the supporting evidence appears incomplete. Nonetheless, with a thorough re-examination of the training and testing procedures, this model can be widely applicable for predicting genome-wide protein-DNA binding sites.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Sequence-specific DNA recognition underlies essential processes in gene regulation, yet methods for simultaneous prediction of genomic DNA recognition sites and their binding affinity remain lacking. Here, we present the Interpretable protein-DNA Energy Associative (IDEA) model, a residue-level, interpretable biophysical model capable of predicting binding sites and affinities of DNA-binding proteins. By fusing structures and sequences of known protein-DNA complexes into an optimized energy model, IDEA enables direct interpretation of physicochemical interactions among individual amino acids and nucleotides. We demonstrate that this energy model can accurately predict DNA recognition sites and their binding strengths across various protein families. Additionally, the IDEA model is integrated into a coarse-grained simulation framework that quantitatively captures the absolute protein-DNA binding free energies. Overall, IDEA provides an integrated computational platform alleviating experimental costs and biases in assessing DNA recognition and can be utilized for mechanistic studies of various DNA-recognition processes.
Article activity feed
-
eLife Assessment
This valuable work presents an interpretable protein-DNA Energy Associative (IDEA) model for predicting binding sites and affinities of DNA-binding proteins. The study provides a detailed description of the method, making it reproducible. However, the generalizability of the prediction model presents certain concerns, and the supporting evidence appears incomplete. Nonetheless, with a thorough re-examination of the training and testing procedures, this model can be widely applicable for predicting genome-wide protein-DNA binding sites.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
This work presents an Interpretable protein-DNA Energy Associative (IDEA) model for predicting binding sites and affinities of DNA-binding proteins. Experimental results demonstrate that such an energy model can predict DNA recognition sites and their binding strengths across various protein families and can capture the absolute protein-DNA binding free energies.
Strengths:
(1) The IDEA model integrates both structural and sequence information, although such an integration is not completely original.
(2) The IDEA predictions seem to have agreement with experimental data such as ChIP-seq measurements.
Weaknesses:
(1) The authors claim that the binding free energy calculated by IDEA, trained using one MAX-DNA complex, correlates well with experimentally measured MAX-DNA binding free energy (Figure 2) …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
This work presents an Interpretable protein-DNA Energy Associative (IDEA) model for predicting binding sites and affinities of DNA-binding proteins. Experimental results demonstrate that such an energy model can predict DNA recognition sites and their binding strengths across various protein families and can capture the absolute protein-DNA binding free energies.
Strengths:
(1) The IDEA model integrates both structural and sequence information, although such an integration is not completely original.
(2) The IDEA predictions seem to have agreement with experimental data such as ChIP-seq measurements.
Weaknesses:
(1) The authors claim that the binding free energy calculated by IDEA, trained using one MAX-DNA complex, correlates well with experimentally measured MAX-DNA binding free energy (Figure 2) based on the reported Pearson Correlation of 0.67. However, the scatter plot in Figure 2A exhibits distinct clustering of the points and thus the linear fit to the data (red line) may not be ideal. As such. the use of the Pearson correlation coefficient that measures linear correlation between two sets of data may not be appropriate and may provide misleading results for non-linear relationships.
(2) In the same vein, the linear Pearson Correlation analysis performed in Figure 5A and the conclusion drawn may be misleading.
(3) The authors included the sequences of the protein and DNA residues that form close contacts in the structure in the training dataset, whereas a series of synthetic decoy sequences were generated by randomizing the contacting residues in both the protein and DNA sequences. In particular, synthetic decoy binders were generated by randomizing either the DNA (1000 sequences) or protein sequences (10,000 sequences) from the strong binders. However, the justification for such randomization and how it might impact the model's generalizability and transferability remain unclear.
(4) The authors performed Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and reported the Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores in order to quantitate the successful identification of the strong binders by IDEA. It would be beneficial to analyze the precision-recall (PR) curve and report the PRAUC metric which could be more robust.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Zhang et al. present a methodology to model protein-DNA interactions via learning an optimizable energy model, taking into account a representative bound structure for the system and binding data. The methodology is sound and interesting. They apply this model for predicting binding affinity data and binding sites in vivo. However, the manuscript lacks discussion of/comparison with state-of-the-art and evidence of broad applicability. The interpretability aspect is weak, yet over-emphasized.
Strengths:
The manuscript is well organized with good visualizations and is easy to follow. The methodology is discussed in detail. The IDEA energy model seems like an interesting way to study a protein-DNA system in the context of a given structure and binding data. The authors show that an IDEA model trained …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Zhang et al. present a methodology to model protein-DNA interactions via learning an optimizable energy model, taking into account a representative bound structure for the system and binding data. The methodology is sound and interesting. They apply this model for predicting binding affinity data and binding sites in vivo. However, the manuscript lacks discussion of/comparison with state-of-the-art and evidence of broad applicability. The interpretability aspect is weak, yet over-emphasized.
Strengths:
The manuscript is well organized with good visualizations and is easy to follow. The methodology is discussed in detail. The IDEA energy model seems like an interesting way to study a protein-DNA system in the context of a given structure and binding data. The authors show that an IDEA model trained on one system can be transferred to other structurally similar systems. The authors show good performance in discriminating between binding-vs-decoy sequences for various systems, and binding affinity prediction. The authors also show evidence of the ability to predict genome-wide binding sites.
Weaknesses:
An energy-based model that needs to be optimized for specific systems is inherently an uncomfortable idea. Is this kind of energy model superior to something like Rosetta-based energy models, which are generally applicable? Or is it superior to family-specific knowledge-based models? It is not clear.
Prediction of binding affinity is a well-studied domain and many competitors exist, some of which are well-used. However, no quantitative comparison to such methods is presented. To understand the scope of the presented method, IDEA, the authors should discuss/compare with such methods (e.g. PMID 35606422).
The term "interpretable" has been used lavishly in the manuscript while providing little evidence on the matter. The only evidence shown is the family-specific residue-nucleotide interaction/energy matrix and speculations on how these values are biologically sensible. Recent works already present more biophysical, fine-grained, and sometimes family-independent interpretability (e.g. PMID 39103447, 36656856, 38352411, etc.). The authors should put into context the scope of the interpretability of IDEA among such works.
The manuscript disregards subtle yet important differences in commonly used terminology in the field. For example, the authors use the term "specificity" and "affinity" almost interchangeably (for example, the caption for Figure 3A uses "specificity" although the Methods text describes the prediction as about "affinity"). If the authors are looking to predict specificity, IDEA needs to be put in the context of the corresponding state-of-the-art (PMID 36123148, 39103447, 38867914, 36124796, etc).
It is not clear how much the learned energy model is dependent on the structural model used for a specific system/family. It would be interesting to see the differences in learned model based on different representative PDB structures used. Similarly, the supplementary figures show a lack of discriminative power for proteins like PDX1 (homeodomain family), POU, etc. Can the authors shed some light on why such different performances?
It is also not clear if IDEA's prediction for reverse complement sequences is the same for a given sequence. If so, how is this property being modelled? Either this description is lacking or I missed it.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
Protein-DNA interactions and sequence readout represent a challenging and rapidly evolving field of study. Recognizing the complexity of this task, the authors have developed a compact and elegant model. They have applied well-established approaches to address a difficult problem, effectively enhancing the information extracted from sparse contact maps by integrating artificial sequences decoy set and available experimental data. This has resulted in the creation of a practical tool that can be adapted for use with other proteins.
Strengths:
(1) The authors integrate sparse information with available experimental data to construct a model whose utility extends beyond the limited set of structures used for training.
(2) A comprehensive methods section is included, ensuring that the work can be …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
Protein-DNA interactions and sequence readout represent a challenging and rapidly evolving field of study. Recognizing the complexity of this task, the authors have developed a compact and elegant model. They have applied well-established approaches to address a difficult problem, effectively enhancing the information extracted from sparse contact maps by integrating artificial sequences decoy set and available experimental data. This has resulted in the creation of a practical tool that can be adapted for use with other proteins.
Strengths:
(1) The authors integrate sparse information with available experimental data to construct a model whose utility extends beyond the limited set of structures used for training.
(2) A comprehensive methods section is included, ensuring that the work can be reproduced. Additionally, the authors have shared their model as a GitHub project, reflecting their commitment to transparency of research.
Weaknesses:
(1) The coarse-graining procedure appears artificial, if not confusing, given that full-atom crystal structures provide more detailed information about residue-residue contacts. While the selection procedure for distance threshold values is explained, the overall motivation for adopting this approach remains unclear. Furthermore, since this model is later employed as an empirical potential for molecular modeling, the use of P and C5 atoms raises concerns, as the interactions in 3SPN are modeled between Cα and the nucleic base, represented by its center of mass rather than P or C5 atoms.
(2) Although the authors use a standard set of metrics to assess model quality and predictive power, some ΔΔG predictions compared to MITOMI-derived ΔΔG values appear nonlinear, which casts doubt on the interpretation of the correlation coefficient.
(3) The discussion section lacks information about the model's limitations and a comprehensive comparison with other models. Additionally, differences in model performance across various proteins and their respective predictive powers are not addressed.
-
-