Understanding the relationship between the sequence, structure, binding energy, binding kinetics and binding thermodynamics of protein–protein interactions is crucial to understanding cellular signaling, the assembly and regulation of molecular complexes, the mechanisms through which mutations lead to disease, and protein engineering. We present SKEMPI 2.0, a major update to our database of binding free energy changes upon mutation for structurally resolved protein–protein interactions. This version now contains manually curated binding data for 7085 mutations, an increase of 133%, including changes in kinetics for 1844 mutations, enthalpy and entropy changes for 443 mutations, and 440 mutations, which abolish detectable binding. The database is available as supplementary data and at https://life.bsc.es/pid/skempi2/. Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

We present the results for CAPRI Round 46, the third joint CASP‐CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round comprised a total of 20 targets including 14 homo‐oligomers and 6 heterocomplexes. Eight of the homo‐oligomer targets and one heterodimer comprised proteins that could be readily modeled using templates from the Protein Data Bank, often available for the full assembly. The remaining 11 targets comprised 5 homodimers, 3 heterodimers, and two higher‐order assemblies. These were more difficult to model, as their prediction mainly involved “ab‐initio” docking of subunit models derived from distantly related templates. A total of ~30 CAPRI groups, including 9 automatic servers, submitted on average ~2000 models per target. About 17 groups participated in the CAPRI scoring rounds, offered for most targets, submitting ~170 models per target. The prediction performance, measured by the fraction of models of acceptable quality or higher submitted across all predictors groups, was very good to excellent for the nine easy targets. Poorer performance was achieved by predictors for the 11 difficult targets, with medium and high quality models submitted for only 3 of these targets. A similar performance “gap” was displayed by scorer groups, highlighting yet again the unmet challenge of modeling the conformational changes of the protein components that occur upon binding or that must be accounted for in template‐based modeling. Our analysis also indicates that residues in binding interfaces were less well predicted in this set of targets than in previous Rounds, providing useful insights for directions of future improvements.

We present the results for CAPRI Round 54, the 5th joint CASP‐CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round offered 37 targets, including 14 homodimers, 3 homo‐trimers, 13 heterodimers including 3 antibody–antigen complexes, and 7 large assemblies. On average ~70 CASP and CAPRI predictor groups, including more than 20 automatics servers, submitted models for each target. A total of 21 941 models submitted by these groups and by 15 CAPRI scorer groups were evaluated using the CAPRI model quality measures and the DockQ score consolidating these measures. The prediction performance was quantified by a weighted score based on the number of models of acceptable quality or higher submitted by each group among their five best models. Results show substantial progress achieved across a significant fraction of the 60+ participating groups. High‐quality models were produced for about 40% of the targets compared to 8% two years earlier. This remarkable improvement is due to the wide use of the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold2‐Multimer software and the confidence metrics they provide. Notably, expanded sampling of candidate solutions by manipulating these deep learning inference engines, enriching multiple sequence alignments, or integration of advanced modeling tools, enabled top performing groups to exceed the performance of a standard AlphaFold2‐Multimer version used as a yard stick. This notwithstanding, performance remained poor for complexes with antibodies and nanobodies, where evolutionary relationships between the binding partners are lacking, and for complexes featuring conformational flexibility, clearly indicating that the prediction of protein complexes remains a challenging problem.

Summary: The PPI3D web server is focused on searching and analyzing the structural data on protein–protein interactions. Reducing the data redundancy by clustering and analyzing the properties of interaction interfaces using Voronoi tessellation makes this software a highly effective tool for addressing different questions related to protein interactions. Availability and Implementation: The server is freely accessible at http://bioinformatics.lt/software/ppi3d/. Contact:ceslovas.venclovas@bti.vu.lt Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.