Summary: A number of complementary methods have been developed for predicting protein-protein interaction sites. We sought to increase prediction robustness and accuracy by combining results from different predictors, and report here a meta web server, meta-PPISP, that is built on three individual web servers: cons-PPISP (http://pipe.scs.fsu.edu/ppisp.html), Promate (http://bioportal.weizmann.ac.il/promate), and PINUP (http://sparks.informatics.iupui.edu/PINUP/). A linear regression method, using the raw scores of the three servers as input, was trained on a set of 35 nonhomologous proteins. Cross validation showed that meta-PPISP outperforms all the three individual servers. At coverages identical to those of the individual methods, the accuracy of meta-PPISP is higher by 4.8 to 18.2 percentage points. Similar improvements in accuracy are also seen on CAPRI and other targets. Availability: meta-PPISP can be accessed at http://pipe.scs.fsu.edu/meta-ppisp.html Contact:zhou@sb.fsu.edu Supplementary information: Data sets, linear regression coefficients, and details of prediction results are shown at the site of the meta-PPISP server.

We present the results for CAPRI Round 30, the first joint CASP‐CAPRI experiment, which brought together experts from the protein structure prediction and protein–protein docking communities. The Round comprised 25 targets from amongst those submitted for the CASP11 prediction experiment of 2014. The targets included mostly homodimers, a few homotetramers, and two heterodimers, and comprised protein chains that could readily be modeled using templates from the Protein Data Bank. On average 24 CAPRI groups and 7 CASP groups submitted docking predictions for each target, and 12 CAPRI groups per target participated in the CAPRI scoring experiment. In total more than 9500 models were assessed against the 3D structures of the corresponding target complexes. Results show that the prediction of homodimer assemblies by homology modeling techniques and docking calculations is quite successful for targets featuring large enough subunit interfaces to represent stable associations. Targets with ambiguous or inaccurate oligomeric state assignments, often featuring crystal contact‐sized interfaces, represented a confounding factor. For those, a much poorer prediction performance was achieved, while nonetheless often providing helpful clues on the correct oligomeric state of the protein. The prediction performance was very poor for genuine tetrameric targets, where the inaccuracy of the homology‐built subunit models and the smaller pair‐wise interfaces severely limited the ability to derive the correct assembly mode. Our analysis also shows that docking procedures tend to perform better than standard homology modeling techniques and that highly accurate models of the protein components are not always required to identify their association modes with acceptable accuracy. Proteins 2016; 84(Suppl 1):323–348. © 2016 The Authors Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Motivation: Proteins function through interactions with other proteins and biomolecules. Protein–protein interfaces hold key information toward molecular understanding of protein function. In the past few years, there have been intensive efforts in developing methods for predicting protein interface residues. A review that presents the current status of interface prediction and an overview of its applications and project future developments is in order. Summary: Interface prediction methods rely on a wide range of sequence, structural and physical attributes that distinguish interface residues from non-interface surface residues. The input data are manipulated into either a numerical value or a probability representing the potential for a residue to be inside a protein interface. Predictions are now satisfactory for complex-forming proteins that are well represented in the Protein Data Bank, but less so for under-represented ones. Future developments will be directed at tackling problems such as building structural models for multi-component structural complexes. Contact:zhou@sb.fsu.edu